Public Health Responsibility Deal
	 — 
	Question

Lord Sharkey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in persuading further fast food chains to sign up to the Public Health Responsibility Deal pledge on calorie reduction.

Earl Howe: We are working hard to persuade other fast food chains to join the wide range of food businesses which have already signed up to the public health responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge and to sign up to other food network pledges. Eleven fast food partners are signatories of the responsibility deal and are taking action in a range of areas including calorie reduction. These partners cover most of the food sold in the fast food sector.

Lord Sharkey: I think the Minister will agree that these public health responsibility deal pledges are very useful. Given the dangers of excessive sugar in our diets, will the Minister consider adding a specific sugar-reduction pledge to the current list—with specific targets, as is already the case for salt—and will he help reduce sugar consumption by following the latest advice of Dr Susan Jebb, chair of the department’s public health responsibility deal food network, and removing fruit juice from the five-a-day recommendations?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall take my noble friend’s final question back with me. We will certainly look at it. However, I stress that our current emphasis is on overall calorie reduction, of which sugar can form a part. The scope for a reformulation to reduce sugar levels varies widely depending on the food and a reduction in sugar levels does not always mean that the overall calorie content is reduced—for example, when sugar is replaced by starch or other ingredients. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition—SACN—is currently undertaking a review of carbo- hydrates and is looking at sugar as part of that. Its report will inform our future thinking.

Lord Palmer: Is the Minister aware that one supermarket chain has announced today that it is going to remove all sweets from its checkout tills? Would it not be a good idea for the noble Earl to invite other supermarket chains to do exactly the same?

Earl Howe: My Lords, we are talking to the supermarket chains about those very matters, and I welcome the action that has been taken. The noble Lord may like to know that, as part of the responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge, Coca-Cola has reduced calories in some of its soft-drink brands by at least 30%, Mars has reduced its single chocolate portions to no more than 250 calories and Tesco has reduced by more than 1 billion the number of calories sold in its own-brand soft drinks.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will the Minister help the House by publishing a list of meetings which Ministers, special advisers and senior civil servants have had with fast food companies in the past year?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall take that request away and write to the noble Lord.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: Does the Minister approve of the letter, which will shortly be sent to all Members of this House and of another place, asking them to measure their waist and to ensure that it is less than half their height? That would apply to quite a few Members opposite, who are clearly eating too much of the gross national product.

Earl Howe: My Lords, we should welcome any measure that encourages us all to improve our diet, to reduce physical inactivity and to be aware of what we need to do to keep our weight under control. I do welcome that letter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will encourage his own noble colleagues to look at themselves in the mirror in the light of that unwarranted attack on my own Benches. Perhaps I can just refer the noble Earl to the report of the National Obesity Forum yesterday, which suggested that, on one of the worst-case scenarios, more than half of the population of this country will be obese by 2050. Does he not think that the volunteer approach may no longer be appropriate? Do the Government not have to take a greater lead on this?

Earl Howe: My Lords, there are certainly no grounds for complacency on obesity levels throughout the nation. However, the current data do not support the claim by the National Obesity Forum. In 2007, the Foresight team projected that, based on data from 1993-2004, more than half the population could be obese by 2050 if no action is taken. An analysis based on recent data suggests a flatter trend than the one projected by the Foresight team. I do not agree that we should belittle the responsibility deal. It has many worthwhile achievements to its credit and they are being added to month by month.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: Although appreciating this scurrilous attack on rotundity, does the noble Earl recollect the immortal words of Shakespeare in “Julius Caesar”:
	“Let me have men about me that are fat; … Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look”.

Earl Howe: I am sure my noble friend Lord McColl would agree that one can go too far in that direction.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, do the Government not accept that people ought to know that if they stuff themselves silly with high-calorie rubbish foods they will get fat? It is their responsibility. All the forums and other nonsense are merely trying to divorce people from the consequences of their own stupid actions.

Earl Howe: My noble friend is absolutely right to place his finger on a central point that, in the end, it is up to individuals to take responsibility for their own state of health.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, if individuals are required to take responsibility but they do not know what they are consuming because the manufacturers or producers do not let them know, or indeed the Government are complicit in not pressing those manufacturers to let people know what they are consuming, should there not be a responsibility on the Government? For example, no one knows the calories in alcohol. There has been no change since this responsibility deal was introduced and there is no change in prospect.

Earl Howe: My Lords, under the responsibility deal, 92 producers and retailers have committed to having 80% of bottles and cans in the UK displaying unit and health information and a pregnancy warning by the end of last year. That is a worthwhile step forward. As regards the calorie labelling of alcoholic drinks, that, as the noble Lord will know, is an EU competence. It is subject to discussion at this time, but most large retailers include the calorie content of alcohol products on their websites, and that information is also available elsewhere.

National Savings and Investments
	 — 
	Question

Lord Naseby: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the introduction of a new computer system at National Savings and Investments.

Lord Newby: My Lords, National Savings and Investments has been moving customer accounts and investments to a new banking system. That follows a major review which concluded that upgrades were necessary to modernise and simplify NS&I products. It will enable products to be managed online, by telephone or post and ensure long-term customer satisfaction. NS&I recognises that a small number of customers may be frustrated, as is often the case during any such period of change, and has taken measures to ensure that customers understand the reasons for its actions.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the NS&I cannot be like every other investment house and send to investors, without asking, a half-yearly statement which lists their holdings and the value of those holdings, plus such transactions as have taken place in the previous six months, and eventually produce a total value of all their holdings?

Lord Newby: My Lords, I think the correct analogy with NS&I is with a bank or building society, where common practice—this is what NS&I is moving towards—is that people get a statement on the anniversary of when they took out savings and that customers are able to look online for a comprehensive statement of all their various policies and holdings.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, although we all appreciate that exceptionally low interest rates have been necessary to shore up the finances of borrowers, particularly mortgage holders, does my noble friend recognise that this has been an extremely difficult time for savers? It is a great pity that during a period in which, until today, inflation has been above the Bank of England’s target, National Savings has withdrawn the inflation-linked savings certificate. Will the spokesman encourage National Savings to help to end that misery for savers and, at least for small savers, introduce some new products with rather better rates of interest?

Lord Newby: My Lords, as the House is aware, when we have very low interest rates, which have been necessary in the economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves, that helps very many consumers, households, mortgage holders and businesses and is on balance, in our view, beneficial to the economy. The downside, as the noble Lord mentions, is that savers get a lower rate of interest. I think it is unrealistic to expect NS&I to promote products with a higher rate of interest than market rates, because its remit is to get best value for money for the Government, but I am sure that the noble Lord and the whole House will welcome the news that inflation is down to 2%, which is the target level.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, returning to the original Question, surely the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is right: NS&I ought to be an exemplar of good practice in informing its investors rather than apparently seeking to catch up.

Lord Newby: My Lords, NS&I needs to be able to compete effectively with best practice across the financial services sector. The truth is that NS&I has been behind the curve. It is undertaking a major programme to get all its customers online. Bear in mind that NS&I has 25 million customers in this country. That is a massive operation. When it is finished, it will be able to give information to the standard that people expect from the best of the other high street brands.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Did my noble friend really say that it was the role of National Savings to get the best return for the Government? Surely its role is to provide a safe haven—as it advertises—
	for savers. Are not the savers getting a poor return because the Government are indulging in quantitative easing, which is a transfer of money from those who have done the right thing to those who have borrowed?

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Government are not doing quantitative easing, the Bank of England is. On the rate payable on National Savings, as the noble Lord will know, the role of National Savings is to contribute to the Government’s funding requirements. In doing that it has to operate in line with market rates because otherwise the Government are paying more for their money via National Savings than through the gilts market.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the noble Lord’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mean that the Chancellor is advising the Governor of the Bank of England that if he has early plans to increase interest rates the Chancellor will use the reserve powers given to him under the Bank of England Act to stop it?

Lord Newby: My Lords, the reserve powers in the Bank of England Act are to be used principally when inflation is outside the target level. That is not the case at the moment. The question of interest rates is very much a matter for the Bank of England. It has adopted a new policy that incorporates forward guidance, which was agreed with the Chancellor in the middle of last year, and that is the basis on which it is operating.

NHS: Essential Services
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Wheeler: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Dr Foster Hospital Guide 2013, how NHS England is monitoring access to essential services and how it intends to address variations in access to and provision of services at clinical commissioning group level.

Earl Howe: My Lords, to help reduce variations in access to health services, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, is working with the medical royal colleges and others to ensure that the NHS is clear about the evidence base for common types of surgical interventions. For example, it will produce guidance for commissioners to help ensure that consistent eligibility criteria are used to access surgical services and so minimise the scope for variation at a local level.

Baroness Wheeler: I thank the Minister for his response. Dr Foster’s report shows that the number of knee and hip replacements and cataract removals has fallen to its lowest level in four years, meaning that more than 12 million people now live in areas where the number of these operations has substantially declined.
	This is despite our elderly population continuing to rise over the same period and these common surgical procedures being vital to ensuring that older people can regain their mobility, keep active and stay living in the community. Does the Minister agree that these are essential treatments? What pressures will be placed on NHS England to ensure that CCGs actually provide them and also that they fulfil their legal obligation to issue guidance to local communities, revealing what their policies are on providing medicines, surgeries and therapeutic interventions?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I should first tell the noble Baroness that we cannot reconcile our own figures with those of Dr Foster. We believe that there has in fact been a significant increase in the number of cataract and knee and hip replacement operations since 2009-10 and not a drop. Regardless of that, I suggest to her that the absolute numbers of operations taking place do not tell us anything about possible rationing or the absence of it. That question can be answered only with the benefit of fuller data. The key to consistent access to these treatments is a common understanding among commissioners of the evidence base in each case. That is exactly what Sir Bruce Keogh is working towards and will provide guidance on in due course.

Baroness Manzoor: Can the Minister state which local NHS services NHS England has deemed to be essential? If an independent provider of these services gets into financial difficulty, who will provide and pay for those services—NHS England or the clinical commissioning groups?

Earl Howe: My Lords, from April this year, CCGs and NHS England will begin to identify formally those healthcare services that they consider essential to protect in the event of the financial failure of their providers. They will be required to designate such services as commissioner requested services. In doing so, they must have regard to Monitor’s published CRS guidance. Should an independent provider of CRS get into financial difficulty, then Monitor will work with the provider and relevant partners to determine the right solution.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, what safeguards are in place to make sure that CCGs do not have a conflict of interest when they contract for services in which they may have a direct involvement?

Earl Howe: The noble Lord will, I am sure, remember from our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill that NHS England has published guidance for CCGs on managing conflicts. There is also a duty placed on CCGs to have regard to such guidance and CCGs set out in their constitution their proposed arrangements for managing conflicts of interest.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: How are the Government able to monitor how CCGs are commissioning background diagnostic services and imaging services, which are essential for accurate
	diagnosis in surgical emergencies and will determine whether a patient should be taken to theatre, given that two-thirds of consultants have expressed concern about the level of care of patients at the weekend? I wonder what levers there are for the Government against those clinical commissioning groups which do not ensure that adequate diagnostic facilities are available.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the CCG assurance framework sets out how NHS England will ensure that CCGs are operating effectively to commission safe and high-quality sustainable services within their resources. Underpinning assurance are the developing relationships between CCGs and NHS England, which should not be overlooked. One key source of evidence is the national delivery dashboard, which provides a consistent set of national data on CCG performance. In addition, there is the CCG outcomes indicator set, which will be an important wider source of evidence from 2014-15 onwards.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl has disputed the figures but if the volume of operations such as knee and hip replacements and cataract removals is declining, does he accept that this is likely to cause further problems in the social care sector? If older people do not receive timely treatment that will transform, as these operations do, their mobility and ability to manage at home alone, surely they will continue to need more support in the community, which we know is under pressure because of shortages in local authority funding. We may call these operations non-essential—we often do—but they are not non-essential if you are an older person with mobility problems.

Earl Howe: I fully agree with the noble Baroness and her point about mobility is very well made. However, NHS England has stated to me explicitly that the assumption that there should be a rising trend in the number of operations proportionate to the rise in the number of elderly people may not necessarily be right, so we have to be wary of using a statistic in isolation to prove one thing or the other.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is still government policy that clinical commissioning groups should accept the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in relation to the availability of expensive drugs in the NHS? What sanctions are available for those that do not comply with those recommendations?

Earl Howe: The noble Lord is right that when NICE gives a positive appraisal on a medicine, whether it is for a rare or a common disease, the funding for that medicine must be available through CCGs or NHS England. If a patient is denied the drug, contrary to the instructions or wishes of their clinician, then there is a route of appeal through either the clinical commissioning group or NHS England.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
	 — 
	Question

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Lord McKenzie of Luton to ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of reports of anomalies in the operation of the underoccupancy charge, whether they have any plans to amend housing benefit regulations.

Lord Freud: The housing benefit regulations will be amended in March 2014 to ensure that all working-age social sector tenants who underoccupy their homes are subject to a reduction in their eligible rent, regardless of the length of their tenancy, unless they fall within one of the limited exceptions. The exceptions include certain excluded tenancies, shared ownership tenancies, mooring charges for houseboats, rent for caravan sites, temporary accommodation and supported exempt accommodation.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not what has happened just another example of the incompetence that surrounds the Government’s welfare reforms, and their careless approach to people’s lives in introducing it? The upshot is that there are thousands of people who are being hit illegally with housing benefit reductions, and thousands of people who are unnecessarily caused undue stress because of the effect of this tax. I would like to ask the Minister how the Government are going to rectify matters for individuals who are denied their full benefit entitlement to date, whose rent arrears may have affected their credit rating, who have moved house in response to the tax and given up their security of tenure, or who have fallen into the clutches of private sector landlords who are now intent on evicting tenants claiming housing benefit? Is not this mess a further reason to scrap this wretched tax?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest. We have put guidance out to local authorities and we intend to regularise the matter through regulations in March.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, the legislation agreed by this House includes the requirement for a full review of the underoccupancy charge. Would my noble friend the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in putting this review in place, and will he confirm that this important process will include not only the impact of the policy but the methods of implementation?

Lord Freud: My Lords, we have an elaborate review, about which I have given full information to this House in the past, that is coming out in two stages. We have the interim report coming out later this year, and we have the final report coming out in 2015.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the numbers may be small, but it is people’s lives that have been affected, and I do not think the noble Lord the Minister actually answered my noble friend’s question about what will happen to them. Could he please answer it now? Also, it is quite likely that many of these people will have got into debt as a result of this. Will the Government pay compensation to cover the interest payments on that debt?

Lord Freud: The reductions in housing benefit will of course be repaid as we correct the anomaly for this period, so people will be made whole.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, when the repayments have to be made by local authorities, will they be reimbursed by central government, since it is clearly not the fault of local authorities that this cock-up has occurred?

Lord Freud: Yes, my Lords, the payment will of course go through as housing payment in the normal way.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, what a catalogue of disasters: the bedroom tax applied illegally to thousands of people; refunds that will be demanded and quite rightly paid; thousands paid a discretionary housing allowance by mistake and not obliged to repay the cash; and people forced to move house from areas they have lived in all of their lives. The Minister boasted of his role in introducing this tax. Will he now admit his personal responsibility in this disaster, and admit that it is a financial and a social disaster?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I will not. The department is engaged in a massive programme of reform. We have successfully brought in a benefit cap, and we have launched PIP, the universal credit and housing benefit reform, to name just a few.

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that in circumstances where couples are required to leave underoccupied houses, it is not necessarily the case that the house that is vacated will be easily re-let?

Lord Freud: My Lords, the position is that we have got a large number of overcrowded social homes; we have got a very long waiting list, stretching out to 2 million people; and the job of local authorities is to make sure that available homes are matched with the requirement of people who have larger families.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, what plans do the Government have to deal with the problem, before it gets widespread, of the growing number of private landlords who have decided not to let any properties to people on benefits?

Lord Freud: My Lords, there are always flows between private landlords coming into the market and coming out of it. The underlying statistics are that, since we
	introduced the local authority housing changes, the number of people in private rented accommodation has gone up.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the Minister undertake to read after this Question Time the questions that have been put to him and which he has not yet answered? For example, there was a question about people who have lost secure tenancies as a result of the Government’s errors. What are the Government going to do to help them?

Lord Freud: My Lords, as I made clear, the regulations that will come in in March will go back to the position that was intended, so people at that stage will have to make adjustments where they need to. So there is a timing issue, but not an underlying one.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, will the noble Lord acknowledge that this House is often not a bad barometer of whether a policy is going well or badly? Could he note, as I have certainly noted, that there has been quite an absence of enthusiasm on his Benches for this policy, and for asking him helpful or even supportive questions? Could he just report that back to the department?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I am pleased to remind the noble Lord that the survey conducted on this policy by Ipsos MORI a couple of months ago found that 78% of people thought that it was important to tackle this problem, and 54% thought it was fair to have this kind of reduction.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, the Minister said that the regulations would be brought forward in March, which is two months from now. What will happen between now and then to the people who have suffered the difficulties that have been described, and how long after the amendments have been made will they take effect?

Lord Freud: I am not quite sure that I got that question. We have put out guidance to local authorities to make it clear that people in that position should not have a reduction in their benefits until the regulations have been introduced in a corrected form.

National Insurance Contributions Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord Newby
	That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the National Insurance Contributions Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 15, Schedule 2, Clauses 16 to 21.
	Motion agreed.

Ministry of Defence: IT Systems
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given in the other place to an Urgent Question. The Statement is as follows:
	“The Army entered into a partnering contract with Capita in March 2012 to manage recruitment of regular and reserve soldiers. This is an Army-led initiative designed to free up military personnel from recruitment-related administrative tasks and to improve the quantity and quality of Army recruits; it will play a key role as we transition the Army to the new Army 2020 structures.
	I should make it clear to the House that the Army has not outsourced its recruitment; it remains in overall charge of recruitment and will continue to play a major role in attraction and mentoring of recruits. Capita’s role is to manage the supporting processes by which a would-be recruit becomes an enlisted regular or a fully-trained reservist.
	As I have explained to the House previously, there have been initial difficulties with this recruiting process as we transition to the new recruiting arrangements with Capita and, in particular, we have encountered difficulties with the IT systems supporting the application and enlistment process. The decision to use the legacy Atlas IT platform was deemed at the time to be the quickest and most effective way of delivering the new recruitment programme. An option to revert to a Capita-hosted solution was included in the contracts as a back-up solution.
	I was made aware last summer that the Army was encountering problems with the integration of the Capita system to the Atlas platform. Since then we have put in place a number of workarounds and mitigation measures to the old IT platform to simplify the application process, and we have reintroduced military personnel to provide manual intervention to support the process.
	Having visited the Army’s recruitment centre in Upavon on 30 October, it was clear to me that, despite the Army putting in place measures to mitigate these problems in the near term, further long-term action was needed to fix the situation. It was agreed in principle at that point that the Atlas system was not capable of timely delivery of the Capita-run programme and that we would need to take up the option to revert to Capita to build a new IT platform specifically to run its system, which will be ready early next year.
	In the short term, we have already taken action to bring in a new range of initiatives that will make it progressively easier and quicker for applicants, both regular and reserve, to enlist. As I informed the House in December, we have already taken a number of actions, including: the introduction this month of a new front-end web application for Army recruitment; a simplified online application form; more streamlined medical clearance processes; greater mentoring of recruits by local reserve units through the application, enlistment and training process; and the reintroduction of reserve
	unit recruitment targets and the provision of recruitment resource to reserve unit commanding officers. With an improved Army recruitment website, streamlined medicals and an increase in the number of recruiting staff, recruits should see a much improved experience by the end of this month.
	As we move forward, we are looking at further ways of improving the management of the recruiting process in the intervening period before the introduction of the advanced IT system now being developed in partnership with Capita, which is expected to be deployed in February 2015. We have just launched a new recruitment drive for the Army, both regular and reserves, which will remind the House and the public that the Army is always recruiting and continues to offer exciting and rewarding careers in both the Regular and the Reserve Forces”.

Lord Rosser: I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. This is another example of things not working out as planned in the Ministry of Defence under this Government’s watch, following the Joint Strike Fighter U-turn, the defence procurement competition with a distinct lack of competitors and now this with the online IT recruitment scheme. The story has broken in today’s Times newspaper of a report by an IT research company on the costs and consequences of this flawed IT system. It is a pity the Secretary of State was not prepared to tell Parliament the details himself, bearing in mind the fact that he has been aware of the difficulty since early last summer.
	What impact has this failure had on recruitment for both regulars and reserves, and how far behind schedule is the recruitment partnering project? What is the Government’s total figure for the additional costs that have been and will be incurred as a result of the flawed IT system, and how many Armed Forces personnel have had to return to or remain in recruitment posts as a result of this failure?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we acknowledge that there have been difficulties, and the Army is working with its partners to put things right. As the noble Lord knows, the previous Government had their share of IT problems, and we in the Ministry of Defence are gripping the problem.
	In the short term, the Army is freeing up to 1,000 soldiers to help with recruiting on the front line. As the response to the Urgent Question said, we are improving the online experience. The application form is being simplified and there is a streamlined medical clearance process and greater mentoring of recruits by the local units. We want to make the whole process much more user friendly.
	Much work has gone into addressing recruiting and a new campaign was launched last weekend. Noble Lords may have seen it. Given the target set out in the Written Ministerial Statement before Christmas, we are confident that this can be achieved. We are changing the shape of the British Army to reflect financial reality and the needs of the 21st century. We need to build up reserves with much more specialist roles.
	Regarding the noble Lord’s specific questions, on additional cost the £15.5 million mentioned is what we have spent so far getting the system to work on the Atlas platform. Of that £15.5 million, £6.7 million has been spent on doing work that is now of no utility—in other words, that £6.7 million will need to be written off. Another £4.4 million is needed to make the interim programme work in terms of extra manpower and so on. This means that the total of £6.7 million plus £4.4 million, which equals £11.1 million, is the extra cost of this announcement. The overall cost of the programme remains within the financial allocation of £1.36 billion covering the period from March 2012 to March 2022.
	This is a long-term issue that deserves cross-party support. I will be going down to Upavon, where the recruiting group, including Capita, is based, and I would like to extend an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lord Palmer and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, or a representative from the defence group, to accompany me to see what the Army and Capita are doing to sort this problem out.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that offer, which I am happy to accept. When the decision was made to recruit online, was it not premature to cease to use the well tried manual systems, which have been used successfully over the years? I understand the need to move into the next century, but in business you do not introduce a new IT system and throw away the old system until you have proved that the new system is working. Can we be reassured that that will be looked at in the future?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, obviously, we will look at that very closely. It is very easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight.
	I failed to answer various questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked me how many Armed Forces personnel will return. I think that I answered that—the Army will be sending in 1,000 regulars to help on the ground with recruiting both the regulars and the reserves. He asked what the effect would be on recruitment, which is a question that I myself asked; the answer is that it is too early to say. How late will the project be? There will be a two-year delay before the full operating capability of the new programme is reached. The IT is due to be up and running in February 2015.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, surely the fundamental, terrible error was, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said, to stop using the old system. We took out the people who actually make young men and women want to join the Army. They want to see a bluff NCO with a chest full of medals talking about the Army, not some Capita or “Crapita” person talking to them from behind a computer. As I understand it, 800 regulars who were doing that job were removed and now we are putting 1,000 back in. Does the Minister agree that that was the fundamental error?

Lord Astor of Hever: No, my Lords, it was not. The whole idea of this was to try to relieve manpower to enable soldiers to go back to the front line as well as reducing cost. However, I point out to the noble Lord that this is not the first IT project to go on. In 1998, Labour announced a programme to reform the way that the NHS used IT. It was originally intended to cost £6.2 billion, but costs later doubled to almost £13 billion. In 2011, the Government axed that project and replaced it with a cheaper, locally led system. The National Audit Office slammed the original scheme, saying that it did not represent value for money, so this is not the first time that there have been problems with IT.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, that is exactly the point that the Minister has made. This is not the first time that an IT system has gone wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, this trial was going completely against the traditional methods of recruiting. Will the noble Lord tell the House whether it was adequately tried out before it was forced on what I understand was a very reluctant Army?

Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Lord is probably better informed on that than I am. We want to get the best of both worlds. The Army is not losing control of recruiting—it was always going to be in control of recruiting—but we want to use the very best software to help it do the job properly and get recruits into the reserves and into the regulars.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that my noble friend Lord West made a very important point about soldiers inspiring young people to want to join the Armed Forces? In the same way, you could say that excellent doctors or lawyers have a role in inspiring young people to join the medical or legal profession. Surely it was a mistake to cut out that role from the Army and Armed Forces and simply give it to an organisation like Capita.

Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Baroness makes a very good point, but, as I said, the Army will not lose control of this whole process and there will be soldiers helping with recruiting. This concept was designed not only to cut costs but to enable soldiers to go back to the front line. The initial gateway business case was accepted back in July 2008 by the previous Government.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in addition to what my noble friend referred to in 1998, does he also recall that there was a massive reduction in the Territorial Army during that period? Some of us who were then sitting in the other place had to defend not one but two Territorial Army bases in our constituencies in order to prevent them from being closed. The situation that we are now dealing with would not be so acute if the Territorial Army had had a more stable period.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. When the previous Administration took office in 1997, the Territorial Army was more
	than 50,000 strong; by the time it left office in 2010, that figure had halved. That pattern of decline has now been arrested and the strength has been stabilised.

Lord Dannatt: My Lords, the regular Army is losing 20% of its strength, which means 20,000 trained soldiers over the next few years over and above the normal annual outflow of trained soldiers. The initiative to increase the strength of the Territorial Army, as it was previously called, is—to be generous about it—struggling. Can the Minister assure the House that the IT system that is in place is good enough to track the regular Reserve—that is, the soldiers who have served and have been recently discharged—and that, in extremis, there is the IT capability there to recall them to the colours as ex-trained regular soldiers?

Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Lord makes a very good point about officers and soldiers who have left whom we might need at some point in the future. The best of my understanding is that we can track them. If that is not the case I will write to the noble Lord.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime andPolicing Bill
	 — 
	Report (2nd Day)

Clause 69: Power to issue closure notices
	Amendment 61A
	 Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon
	61A: Clause 69, page 41, line 25, at end insert—
	“( ) that the use of particular premises has resulted, or (if the notice is not issued) is likely soon to result, in a sexual offence against a child,”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, our amendment adds a new ground for the issuing of a closure notice that would allow premises to be closed in cases of sexual offences against a child. It is largely a preventive measure but would be an important extra tool in tackling this problem. No one could have failed to be distressed and horrified by the reports late last year of groups and gangs of men who abused young and vulnerable girls. They did so by a cold, calculating and sinister grooming process, sometimes involving drink and drugs, which allowed them to sexually and physically abuse these children. So cleverly warped are these groomers’ tactics that the children—and vulnerable adults—may not even realise at the time that they are being abused and exploited.
	We have an opportunity in the Bill to provide more ammunition for those trying to prevent this shocking and evil crime. I hope noble Lords will allow me to put on record my gratitude to those who brought this matter to my attention: Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester; Colin Lambert, leader of Rochdale Council; and Jeanette Stanley, Rochdale’s safety community manager. They
	have given me some hugely important and useful evidence. I know they have been in contact with Home Office Ministers as well. Their experience and knowledge of what works in tackling such crime and where the gaps are in legislation is invaluable. I know that the Minister shares my concerns on this issue and I hope that the Government will share my view of the suggestions that these people brought forward to try to tackle this problem.
	They are seeking an immediate closure power where there is a safeguarding threat. Greater Manchester Police has evidence of properties that are unregulated and unlicensed being used in a variety of ways to prey on vulnerable adults and sexually exploit children “behind closed doors”. Yet the only powers the police have—and will have in legislation if the amendment is not passed—is to close premises on anti-social behaviour grounds. Now that the police have evidence of the shape and extent of this problem, that is no longer enough. In Rochdale, they have been able to use the current anti-social behaviour closure order power on a number of occasions to good effect because they also had sufficient evidence of recent and repetitive anti-social behaviour incidents. However, the main reason for obtaining a closure order was because of safeguarding concerns involving children and young adults. That power allows a short-term disruption to the abuse while the police can then take longer-term permanent action.
	Norman Baker, as Home Office Minister in the other place, has responded to the suggestion outlined in our amendment that closure powers exist under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He is absolutely right—they do—but they apply only to prostitution and pornography, not to protecting children and vulnerable adults. The powers do not allow for the swift action that is needed. However, perhaps the most serious problem with that approach is that to use a sexual offences order, evidence of a criminal offence is needed. The grooming method of such gangs is quite sophisticated in a warped way, and many victims of child rape and sexual abuse do not complain. They may even believe that their abuser is their boyfriend and that they have sex with his friends to please him. While in the clutches of these men, the victims cannot even recognise that they are being abused.
	This is a simple amendment. It obviously does not solve all the problems but it will make a difference. Tony Lloyd and Councillor Colin Lambert first wrote to Minister Jeremy Browne on 4 October last year seeking this help to tackle the problem. I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as Minister, for his willingness to discuss these issues with me. I really hope that the Minister can accept this amendment but I would be happy for him to take it away to consider further, and for us bring something back at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a hugely important matter. I was glad to hear her say that she would welcome the Minister taking the matter away, but I have to say that my reaction would be to wonder whether, as she says—and I am not doubting what she says—there are gaps in our legislation that mean there are problems for the authorities.
	If that were the case, I should have thought it necessary to make changes to the Sexual Offences Act. I question whether the changes should be made in this Bill, given that the offences she is talking about are of a very different order from the nuisance and disorder that this part of the Bill is addressing.
	There is also the difficult issue of taking steps to prevent something that might be a criminal offence—we are talking about something rather different in this part of the Bill—without having gone through prosecution and so on. I have not had a discussion with the Minister —he might be about to take the ground completely from under my feet—but it seems that we are talking about something very important but rather different.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, sexual offences against children are a serious crime and one of the utmost concern to the Government. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling this amendment to allow the House to debate this important issue today.
	The Government are determined to do everything they can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. The United Kingdom has some of the toughest powers in the world to manage the risks posed by sex offenders, but we are committed to ensuring that the police and other enforcement agencies have the right powers to protect the public from sexual harm.
	It may be useful to noble Lords if I outline some of the powers already available to the police to tackle the sexual exploitation of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, in particular, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, already gives the police and the courts the power to close premises on a temporary basis where there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are being used for certain sexual offences involving a child and that closing the premises is necessary to prevent the commission of those offences.
	Under that Act, service of a closure notice by the police will prevent anyone entering or remaining on the premises, unless they regularly reside in or own the premises, until a magistrates’ court decides whether to make a closure order. If the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions are met, it can make a closure order for a period of up to three months. An application can be made for the closure order to be extended but the total period for which a closure order has effect may not exceed six months. The Sexual Offences Act closure notice and order therefore operate similarly to the closure power in the Bill, although they are targeted specifically at sexual crimes against children, which are listed in Sections 47 to 50 of that Act. These crimes all relate to the abuse of children through prostitution or pornography. In addition to their duty to investigate criminal offences, the police have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and have powers to enter premises and remove children to ensure their immediate protection if they believe they are at risk of significant harm.
	I recognise—the noble Baroness is correct to draw this to our attention—that there are concerns that the powers in the Sexual Offences Act do not go far enough. As the noble Baroness has indicated, Home
	Office Ministers have been in recent correspondence with the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, on this issue. Tony Lloyd has pointed to cases where takeaways and other premises could be used for grooming children.
	As I have said, the closure powers in the 2003 Act relate only to premises used in connection with prostitution or pornography, so there may indeed be a case for extending their reach. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has pointed out, I believe the 2003 Act rather than the closure powers in this Bill, which relate to anti-social behaviour, is the proper place to address this issue.
	I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that if she would be prepared to withdraw her amendment, I will undertake to give the matter sympathetic and urgent consideration in advance of Third Reading. I cannot, at this stage, as noble Lords will understand, give any commitment to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. However, I will let her know the outcome of our further deliberations in good time so that if she can, if necessary, retable her amendment, or something similar to it, at that stage.
	We all want to ensure that all possible action is taken by the police to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation. I share the noble Baroness’s determination to get to the bottom of this issue and, as speedily as possible, to plug any confirmed gap in the powers of the police in this regard. I hope that on this basis she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response in this regard. It contrasts quite starkly with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who seemed to be much against taking action in the Bill. However, his response—

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise to the House if I was not clear. I was entirely sympathetic with the thrust of what the noble Baroness was seeking to do but was suggesting, precisely as the Minister has said, that the Sexual Offences Act might well be the place to do it.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: It came over rather more negatively than that, but the Minister’s response was very useful and I think it showed a clear determination to take action on this. I am very happy to enter into discussions with him and we should be able to find a way to bring this back at Third Reading. It is an urgent issue: children are being abused today and will be abused tomorrow and the day after, and we have a real opportunity here to make a difference. I am grateful to the Minister for seizing the opportunity and I look forward to our further discussions.
	Amendment 61A withdrawn.
	Amendment 62
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	62: Clause 69, page 41, line 37, leave out “habitually”

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. These amendments are concerned with people who are affected, and how they are affected, by closure notices and closure orders. Amendment 62 addresses those who “habitually”—that is the term in the Bill—live on the premises and their entitlement to access. The subsequent amendments deal with the clauses relating to temporary orders and their extension and discharge, and appeals, as well as the extent of the building which may be the subject of an appeal.
	I am concerned about the employees who live on site. Pubs, hotels and other leisure establishments often include accommodation for junior staff and not just for the managers. When I raised this at the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, said that closure notices could be,
	“tailored to the appropriate circumstances”.—[ Official Report , 2/12/13; col. 14.]—
	we were talking about security and safety—but that the Government considered that the exception should be limited to residents who are habitually resident and, in the case of an appeal, to those who have an interest in the premises, meaning a financial or legal interest.
	The draft guidance, which we have seen, seems to consider these issues only to the extent of the police or the local authority, allowing discretion for the retrieval of items left on the premises. My concern goes wider than that. A young person employed in the sort of situation to which I have referred may well be living a long way from home and quite suddenly lose the place where they are living, if not habitually at that point. I am not suggesting that this may be a widespread situation but, for those affected, it will be very significant and I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me any more assurances. I am simply not confident that the legislation allows for enough to go into the guidance to cover the points that I am making. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, these amendments relate to the closure powers in Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Bill. She has also indicated that her particular concern is to protect the interests of employees—such as caretakers, for example—who may live on premises subject to a closure notice or order. Amendment 62 relates to the use of the term “habitually” in the context of Clause 69(4). That subsection provides that a closure notice cannot prohibit access by a person who habitually lives on the premises. The term “habitually” in this context means those who routinely or regularly live at those premises. It could, for example, cover students who live away from the family home for part of the year but routinely return to the family home as their main residence or those who spend the majority of the week living at the pub in which they work.
	The term is commonly used in legislation setting out entitlement to social security benefits, such as the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. It is also used in the family law context when a court decides cases under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, where it is often relevant to decide in which country a
	child habitually resides. When approaching this test in each context in which it has arisen, the courts have said that it is essentially a question of fact to be determined by reference to all the circumstances of a particular case. We expect the police and local authorities to follow the same approach in this context and assess each circumstance on a case-by-case basis. However, it is important to retain this word so that we exclude persons who may only occasionally live on the premises: for example, a friend of one of the residents who may just be spending time there over a weekend or at a sleepover.
	Amendments 71, 72, 73 and 75 all seek to extend certain rights—for example, the right of appeal against a closure order—to persons who live on the premises concerned. Such rights already apply to persons on whom a closure notice has been served and on persons who have an interest in the premises. The Government are satisfied that these existing provisions are wide enough to protect the position of employees who may reside on the premises.
	In Committee, I explained that the reference in the Bill to a person having an “interest” in the premises covers those who have a financial or legal interest. I would fully expect that any employee who has been furnished with accommodation as part of his or her employment would have their entitlements to such accommodation set out in either their contract of employment or an associated tenancy agreement. That being the case, I am satisfied that in any such formal relationship between an employee and the owner or occupier of any such premises subject to an application for a closure order, the employee will be a person with an interest in the premises and therefore already covered by the provisions provided in Clauses 74 to 77.
	Finally, Amendment 74 seeks to clarify the circumstances in which an appeal against a decision to make or extend a closure order may be made. Of course, I understand that my noble friend has in mind the situation where an appellant may wish to challenge the extent of a closure order in terms of those parts of a building or structure which are covered by the order. Again, I can assure my noble friend that the provisions in the Bill as drafted allow for this. Clause 77(6) enables the court hearing an appeal to make whatever order it thinks appropriate. This would include varying the terms of a closure order so that it applies to a more limited part of the building or structure in question. Therefore, an employee living on-site could use the appeal to argue that a closure order should not include his or her living area. I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have given, my noble friend is reassured and will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in the Minister’s explanation of “habitually”, which I understood from the previous stage, the example he used of a student whose real home—if I can put it that way—was somewhere else actually confirmed exactly what I was worried about. That part therefore did not reassure me, but I am helped by his more extended explanation of the term “interest”. I know when I am beaten, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 62 withdrawn.
	Clause 72: Service of notices
	Amendments 63 to 70
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	63: Clause 72, page 43, line 39, leave out “an employee” and insert “a representative”
	64: Clause 72, page 43, line 41, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	65: Clause 72, page 43, line 45, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	66: Clause 72, page 44, line 2, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	67: Clause 72, page 44, line 7, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	68: Clause 72, page 44, line 11, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	69: Clause 72, page 44, line 12, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”
	70: Clause 72, page 44, line 14, at end insert—
	“( ) In this section “representative”, in relation to a local authority, means—
	(a) an employee of the authority, or
	(b) a person, or employee or a person, acting on behalf of the authority.”
	Amendments 63 to 70 agreed.
	Clause 74: Temporary orders
	Amendment 71 not moved.
	Clause 75: Extension of closure orders
	Amendment 72 not moved.
	Clause 76: Discharge of closure orders
	Amendment 73 not moved.
	Clause 77: Appeals
	Amendments 74 and 75 not moved.
	Amendment 76
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	76: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
	“Guidance
	(1) The Secretary of State may issue—
	(a) guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise, by officers under their direction or control, of those officers’ functions under this Chapter;
	(b) guidance to local authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter and those of their representatives (within the meaning of section 72).
	(2) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.
	(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published.”
	Amendment 76 agreed.
	Amendments 77 to 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 91: Offences connected with riot
	Amendment 80A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
	80A: Clause 91, page 61, line 41, leave out “a person” and insert “an adult”

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, Clause 91 introduces a new discretionary ground for possession for offences connected with a riot. The existing grounds for possession for anti-social behaviour are discretionary and require that the anti-social behaviour must have occurred in the locality of the property. This means that thuggish behaviour committed against neighbours or in the immediate vicinity of a tenant’s home may currently be a basis for eviction.
	However, similar offences likely to have a devastating effect on whole communities such as looting, or other riot-related criminal activity, committed by tenants further from their homes would not usually be taken into account. I do not think that that is right. It is important that people who wreck other people’s communities through riot-related offences should face the same consequences that they would if they carried out such behaviour in their own neighbourhoods.
	It is not just the Government who are of this view. Following the 2011 riots, the e-petition entitled “Convicted London rioters should lose all benefits” received over a quarter of a million signatures, the second greatest number of signatories for any e-petition that has been submitted to the Government to date. That is strong evidence that the public want tough action to deal with rioters.
	This clause seeks to make sure that that is the case by adding a new ground for possession into the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 in respect of secure tenants and assured tenants respectively. Under the new ground, landlords will be able to apply for possession of a tenant’s property in England where the tenant or a person living in the tenant’s property has been convicted of an offence committed at the scene of a riot which took place anywhere in the UK.
	Following concerns raised in Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we gave a commitment to consider the amendments tabled at that stage by my noble friends, Lady Hamwee and Lord Greaves, which proposed that the new ground would apply only where the tenant and not a member of the household has been convicted of a “serious offence”, rather than any offence, as currently drafted.
	Recognising the concerns that have been expressed, government Amendments 80A to 80F provide further reassurance that the new ground will apply only to the more serious cases of riotous behaviour. Amendments 80A, 80C, 80D and 80F provide that landlords would be able to seek possession under the provisions of Clause 91 only where the tenant or an adult member of their household has been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot.
	We have retained the application of the ground to the convictions of adult members of the household as we do not believe that adult perpetrators of serious anti-social behaviour or criminal activity should be able to escape consequences for their home simply on the basis that the tenancy is not in their name.
	In addition, to address concerns relating to the possibility of minor offences triggering possession under this ground, Amendments 80B and 80D would restrict the application of the new ground to “indictable offences” instead of any offence committed at the scene of a riot as currently drafted. This means that convictions for less serious offences such as common assault and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty will not trigger possession under this ground. However, I emphasise our commitment to ensuring that we send a strong signal: if you get involved in a riot, whether it is near your home or not, there may be consequences for your tenancy.
	With regard to the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the ground amounts to a double punishment and may disproportionately affect children, it is important to note that the new ground is discretionary and that the court can grant possession only where it considers it reasonable to do so. This means that the court can take into account the circumstances of the tenant and other family members, including children, when deciding whether to grant possession. I should add that available evidence also indicates that landlords resort to eviction only as a last resort. In addition, these government amendments would provide additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that whole families are not evicted under the new ground for the actions of a child during a riot. I would reassure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan— I am pleased to see that she is in her place—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who have tabled Amendment 80G to remove Clause 91 from the Bill, that we expect the impact of the provision and the number of evictions, including those of families, to be very small over time. That is especially as I hope that we will not see any future occurrences of the disgraceful looting and rioting across England that we saw in the summer of 2011.
	I hope that the House will agree that these government amendments respond positively to the concerns that have been expressed about this provision and that your Lordships will support the retention of Clause 91 in its amended form. I beg to move.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, Clause 91 as originally drafted added a new ground for possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 and Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 so that, as the Minister has said, a landlord might apply for possession where someone living in the property has been convicted of an offence committed at the scene of a riot which had taken place anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has consistently stated that this clause should be deleted from the Bill. In the first instance the committee stated that it was unnecessary and disproportionate. It was also concerned about the potentially serious implications of this clause for family members and considered that it may disproportionately
	affect both women and children. The committee said that it amounted to a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm to others.
	I wish to set out absolutely the aggravated nature of riot offences. Living in Northern Ireland, I have long experience of the fear and the horror of riots. People who commit criminal offences must be pursued under the criminal law. To allow an offence committed anywhere in the UK, even if the conviction were to be on indictment only, to be grounds for eviction where there is a tenancy, is certainly to impose a second punishment on a limited group of people who do not own their own home and who have committed no offence, since the other members of the household have committed no offence. I should like to thank the Minister for meeting with me in December to discuss this issue, and for giving me the opportunity to articulate again the difficulties with this clause.
	I note the amendments that the Government have now tabled and the fact that they make in effect two changes. The clause will apply only where an adult member of the household—someone living in the house—has been convicted of an indictable offence. That is to be welcomed because it limits the effect of the clause. It relieves from the threat of eviction the families of young people who may have fallen into bad company, but who have been dealt with for their criminality under the criminal law. However, that still leaves tenants and their householders subject to a possible double punishment for a crime committed either by a tenant or someone else who lives in the rented property, and no such double punishment can be applied to a private householder. The family of such a household will be put through the stress, fear and expense of fighting an eviction application. It will go on for months, and while they may well win at the end of the day, there will still have been serious disruption and expense and, above all, distress to the family. Can the Minister tell me whether there is a time limit on the use of a conviction as a ground for eviction? If a person was convicted in 2013, could that conviction be used in 2014? If he was convicted 2011 as a result of the London riots, could it be used in 2014?
	Clause 91 would create the curious circumstance in which someone convicted of a riot offence in Edinburgh, Glasgow or even Belfast could be evicted in England and Wales but a person convicted in England and Wales could not be evicted in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Government have offered no justification for this measure, nor is there any necessity for it, even in its amended form. In the Minister’s letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the explanation for the Government’s amendments is that, in light of the Lords Committee stage debate, they concluded that it would be appropriate to place further safeguards on the face of the legislation. However, the Minister repeats the Government’s position that “this provision is intended to deter the sort of deplorable ‘riot tourism’ that we witnessed in summer 2011”. The Joint Committee on Human Rights states:
	“In our view it is the job of the criminal law, not the civil law, to deter riot-related offences and to administer sanctions when such offences are committed. Nor do we consider the existence of judicial discretion to be a satisfactory answer to our concern about the disproportionate impact of eviction on other members
	of the household who have not engaged in such behaviour. We maintain our recommendation that clause 91 be deleted from the Bill”.
	The justification for the current position under the Housing Act is that those convicted of rioting in their locality pose a threat to their local community and that, in order to protect that community, the person must be removed from it. This justification cannot cover the proposed extension of the ground for eviction—there is no link between the crime and the local area. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, stated in Committee,
	“the provision to order possession of a property when the offence has absolutely nothing to do with protecting neighbours, for example, from anti-social behaviour, is a step too far. It is politically motivated and is not driven by the needs of justice. Therefore, it should be no part of this Bill”.—[ Official Report , 2/12/13; col. 62.]
	The Government have sought to justify their proposals by stating that the threat of eviction is intended to deter those considering engaging in riot-related behaviour —but that is the purpose of the criminal law.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is soon to take his place on the Front Bench, stated that he could not endorse the clause. He did not qualify that in any way:
	“The courts have sufficient powers to deal firmly with offenders caught up in a riot … The criminal justice system—some would say ‘for once’—in general responded very well to what occurred”.
	He also said:
	“Those who committed offences during the riot on that occasion were dealt with speedily and firmly”.
	He stated that he did not think it was “necessary or appropriate” to legislate in this manner,
	“given all the other powers that exist elsewhere in the Bill”,
	and concluded that,
	“this clause is a step too far”. —[ Official Report , 2/12/13; col. 60.]
	In 2011, Wandsworth Council threatened to evict a Liberty client, Maite de la Calva, and her younger daughter, if her son was convicted of a crime committed during the riots in 2011. Her son had been arrested and charged during the disorder. He had moved out of his mother’s property earlier in the year, but she was still served with a notice by Wandsworth Council seeking possession, which stated that she was likely to have breached her tenancy agreement. The authority vowed to apply for a possession order evicting her and her daughter if her son was convicted. This was despite her contribution to the local area over the past three years: she was described as a credit to her housing estate by neighbours and spent her spare time volunteering with a youth charity and working with domestic violence victims. She had committed no crime herself and would not have faced that threat had she lived in a mortgaged house. Liberty represented her in challenging Wandsworth Council’s attempt to punish her and her daughter for her son’s conviction. Eventually the council was persuaded to back down, but not before considerable anxiety and suffering had been inflicted. If the eviction powers set out in the Bill are enacted, even as modified by the present government amendments, there will be many more cases just like this one and it is unlikely that the outcome in all of them will be as positive.
	Removing a person and their family from social housing is unlikely to lead to less, rather than more, crime and anti-social behaviour. Dispossession will shift the problem elsewhere, creating new and greater problems for the individuals concerned and their families. Private housing may be unavailable and private sector rents are rising, partly as a consequence of the welfare reform measures. Temporary accommodation does not deal with the issue: it splits up families; it disrupts education and social cohesion; and the end result may well be that alternative accommodation becomes unaffordable for many families, leading to increased homelessness and destitution.
	I ask the Minister to consider again the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has consistently said that this clause is neither necessary nor proportionate; that it is not about protecting a local area; that it discriminates against those in public housing; and above all that it will create significant distress to people who have committed no crime.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 80G—to which I added my name as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has moved the amendment so powerfully.
	I apologise for not being able to be present during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I have read the debate. It was striking that no noble Lord other than the Minister, of course, spoke in support of Clause 91. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who is also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, called it an unhelpful precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, lately of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—who have both already been quoted—called it a step too far. To the Minister’s credit, he has taken note and come back with government amendments. In my view, however, his amendments are a step not far enough. They do not meet the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which have been voiced in two reports on the Bill and lie behind Amendment 80G. The noble Lords who serve on the JCHR said in Committee that Clause 91 smacks of punishment rather than serving as a means of preventing harm. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, it would create a double punishment. The Minister talks about tough action, but tough action was taken after the riots, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, argued strongly in Committee. Moreover, in many cases the punishment will be applied to people who are totally innocent of the behaviour in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the clause creating new victims.
	In response to the JCHR’s concerns on this point, the Minister tried to reassure your Lordships that the power would be discretionary and the courts would have regard to what is reasonable before granting a possession order. He also argued in Committee that it is an established principle of tenancy law that a tenant is held responsible for the behaviour of members of their household. Surely tenancy law concerns behaviour that affects the accommodation and/or contravenes a condition of the tenancy and not behaviour that could
	have taken place hundreds of miles away. Indeed, the Minister himself has dubbed it “riot tourism”. That is not a phrase that I would use but it underlines the fact that we are talking about behaviour that has no implications for the neighbours of those concerned, and nor does it affect the landlord.
	Research into existing discretionary anti-social behaviour powers reveals how, in practice, women are often held responsible for the behaviour of sons and/or male partners. Reporting on this research in an article in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Caroline Hunter and Judy Nixon note that two out of three complaints of anti-social behaviour against women heads of households concerns the behaviour of teenage children—mainly sons—or male partners or boyfriends. The article states:
	“Regardless of the difficulty and in some cases, the impossibility women experienced in controlling the behaviour of their teenage sons or boyfriends, they were deemed responsible for the behaviour and were as a result evicted from their homes … while the lack of fault on the part of the women in many of these cases was striking and in some cases acknowledged by the judges, this was not a sufficient factor to prevent the women from being punished and evicted from their homes”.
	So I am not reassured by what the Minister said about this being discretionary and about the reasonableness of the judicial system.
	Subsequent analysis of more recent Court of Appeal cases found a similar pattern, in particular in relation to the behaviour of male partners—not underaged children but partners. Limiting the operation of Clause 91 to cases where a riot-related offence is committed by an adult member of the household, as under the government amendment, in practice makes little difference. In many cases, it will be adults, probably males, sons or partners, who are the perpetrators.
	The phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was striking: we are creating new victims here. Those innocent victims who will lose their homes will disproportionately be women and children. The Minister also tried to reassure us by saying that the impact will be small, there will not be that many people affected. What about every woman and child who loses their house, their home, because of this provision? Surely that is not just; that is not fair.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that nobody wishes to condone rioting or the serious damage and intimidation that it can cause. Most of us are grateful to the Government for bringing forward their amendments. Nevertheless, they do not deal with the discrimination against, for example, owner-occupiers, because they touch only on secure and assured tenants. There is the further point that the Bill, even as amended, is very likely to punish the innocent. Unless the Government can come back with a very much better defence of the clause, I shall certainly support the noble Baroness and my noble friend if they wish to press the amendment to a Division.

The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, first, I should like to clarify a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and reinforce what she said about the Landlord and Tenant Act issues under secure tenancies.
	The legal situation, as I understand it from my profession as a chartered surveyor, is that tenants are responsible for the actions of those living with them only to the extent of the lease terms and the demise concerned. It does not and never has extended to liability for the wider actions of members of a tenant’s household elsewhere. Even general paving clauses such as “immoral or illegal activity” have, as I understand it, been pleaded in vain. I put that clearly. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has raised a valid point here. The whole of Clause 91 looks like being a knee-jerk reaction that would go beyond what is necessary and desirable.
	I would like to ask one or two questions for clarification. What about the whole question of the rehabilitation of offenders? When somebody has been indicted, put into prison, served their sentence and comes out, what are the circumstances in which a court will grant this further period of indefinite rustication, if you like, from any sort of enjoyment of a place that they can call a home and to which they can naturally relate? What are the safeguards? Is this the default position, or does it concern the second or third strike after the event? We do not know and I invite the Minister to clarify the position.
	Moreover, what about the selective post-sentence treatment of rioters as a particular species of offender under the Bill—as opposed to, say, murderers or other offenders? Very large numbers of offences are anti-social, and virtually all have a victim class of some sort who would naturally look, under the terms of the overarching principle of this Bill, to some sort of rebalancing. I worry about the singling out of this class of offender. Maybe the Minister can explain how that works. This provision could result in a class of persons without rights to occupy anything that they could call a home of their own. That needs to be circumscribed and contained in some way because the circumstances of the offence will not necessarily be replicated. If there is no risk of replication, what is the court being instructed to do? The justification is rebalancing towards the interests of victims—for them to feel that justice has been done. Would Clause 91 achieve that rebalancing? I am not clear that it would.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the term “knee-jerk reaction” was used. I think we are all clear—let me use a synonym—that it was an immediate reaction to the riots of 2011. I am never comfortable with using legislation to give a message. At the previous stage I proposed amendments that were replicated in what we have today because I recognise the political realities of the situation and the circumstances in which that message had been given.
	I was horrified when I looked at Hansardtosee that I was on record as saying that I was happy with the clause. Hansardnow knows that I was not happy with the clause and is correcting the record from Committee stage. As I say, I recognise the strength of feeling and where we might well end up. Knowing how the two Houses work and that this clause has been considered by the Commons, I went straight to what I hoped might be a way of ameliorating the situation, which was to suggest that it be limited to serious offences. That is a very significant change and taken with the
	other safeguards—that is how I look at them—which the Minister has listed, I am perhaps somewhere between where
	Hansard
	said I was and where I was. I am not happy but I am not nearly as unhappy as I might have been.
	I was interested to know what had happened in Wandsworth after the 2011 riots and checked with the council. I understand that that council—presumably this is not the case with every local authority—has specific tenancy conditions covering the behaviour of tenants and it considered the criminal activities as coming within those conditions. The housing professional from whom I have heard talked about the double jeopardy term being used as a criticism but said, however, that the ground relating to possession for a serious conviction has existed since 1985. In essence, if the new ground meant that a tenant living in one borough could be pursued if convicted in connection with rioting in another borough I can see the attraction but I doubt whether the courts will agree. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments today.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could address the case of the adult child of a tenant who is away at university but whose place of permanent residence remains the family home and who gets involved in a riot—a serious matter—in or near the university. Would it be the case that in those circumstances the parent stands to lose their tenancy?

Lord Elton: If your Lordships will permit a latecomer—almost an interloper—to ask just one question, would my noble friend be kind enough to tell me what exactly is the definition of the members of a household? I take it that it includes anybody who has been given or lent a room at the time. Would it include anybody who is paying the tenant for a room? It would obviously not include anybody who was paying the landlord for a room. In other words, is there any necessity for there to be a familial or emotional connection, or any other close connection, with the other members of the household?

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be present for the Committee stage of the Bill. As the House knows, there were various clashes of other important Bills at the same time, so I come new to this issue. It seems to me that what the Government are trying to do here is to give an additional power to the courts. That point has not yet been made by anyone, other than the Minister. It is of course a matter entirely for the court whether or not such an order is made. I see that Clause 91(1) refers to,
	“grounds on which court may order possession … if it considers it reasonable”.
	It seems to me that if a university student, who is almost certainly over 18, goes AWOL and behaves extremely badly in university precincts but has a mother and three young siblings living in the house, the mother will have absolutely no control over the young man at university. She probably does not even have any financial control these days. The court would be certain to look
	at the hardship of the situation and this would be a circuit judge in the county court. I am not particularly keen on this addition to the powers of the court but I would find it difficult to believe that a court would act other than justly and with mercy in situations that would require it.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: Before the noble and learned Baroness sits down, does she accept that the research which I quoted suggests that the courts have perhaps not always been reasonable in their application of anti-social behaviour legislation and that lone mothers, in particular, have been evicted because of the behaviour of men in their household who they simply were unable to control?

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I understand the point and I would hope that there would be an appeal system so that at some stage this issue would come before the Court of Appeal, which would deal with it appropriately.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accepting the amendment suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee which excludes offences committed by young people and excludes minor offences as well. However, I share other noble Lords’ concerns about this additional sanction. As I said in Committee, in the aftermath of the riots a couple of years ago, the courts clearly showed how seriously they took offences committed during a riot—far more seriously than if those offences had been committed at some other time. It does not appear to be necessary to have a further sanction in order to deter rioters. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that this is a power given to the courts. I am a great believer in the courts and in the fact that they will make the right decisions. But I fail to see why we need this power. I cannot think of circumstances where a court would allow such an order to be made. Therefore, I see this power as being superfluous.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I want to repeat a point I made briefly at Second Reading, following up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about Wandsworth Borough Council. I, too, checked with serving councillors regarding what happened subsequent to the 2011 riots. It is my information that the council did not pursue the repossession of its property. Although it had the powers, the council decided that it was not in its interest or that of the tenants to pursue the matter. Therefore, I agree with the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. One has to question the motivations of the Government for pursuing this legislative change when a council which sees itself as a flagship of the Conservative Party has not pursued the avenues that were open to it.

Lord Rosser: The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, have already made a strong case for deleting Clause 91. The Government, of course, have put down amendments that make some changes to that clause, but do not address the basic objections, which have also been expressed for a second time by the Joint Committee on
	Human Rights, about the disproportionate impact of eviction on other members of the household who have not engaged in such riot-related behaviour. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was not moved by the references to judicial discretion, so clearly it did not rate very highly in its thinking as a safeguard. The Joint Committee also expressed the view that it was the job of criminal law, not civil law, to deter riot-related offences, and to administer sanctions when such offences were committed. As has been said, courts when sentencing, quite rightly, already take a much more serious view of offences committed as part of a riot, and under cover of a riot, as was shown by the sentences given to those convicted following the riots in 2011. Many people were sent straight to prison when they probably would not have been given such a sentence if the offence had not been committed in association with the riots.
	Clause 91 does not just relate to offences in the locality in which the offender lives, but covers such offences anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is clearly seen as an additional punishment by the Government, and it is not related to the experience of victims in the locality in which the offender lives. The Government are seeking to make some amendments so that Clause 91 would not apply where under-18s are convicted of a riot-related offence or in respect of the most minor offences. However, that still means that, since Clause 91 relates to repossession where a person residing in the dwelling house has been convicted of a riot-related offence, the penalty of eviction affects everybody else in the house. People who are guilty of no crime, such as pensioners with a son or daughter living at home, or children whose older brother or sister, aged 18 or over, has been convicted, are the innocent victims of Clause 91.
	It will certainly act as a deterrent to a member of a household reporting another member of the household to the police for rioting if they know that the effect of such action, which surely we should encourage not discourage, would be to find themselves evicted as a result, under the terms of the clause. Why do the Government take the view that riot-related offences justify repossession and eviction when they do not take that view over equally serious or more serious offences? In addition, why do they think that those who commit riot-related offences away from their own locality and who own their own home or live in a house that is owner-occupied should face no further penalty other than the sentence of the court for the crime that they have committed but that those who live in rented accommodation should not only receive and serve the sentence of the court for the riot-related crime that they have committed but face eviction from the house in which they live in their own locality, along with other members of the household, who could include the tenant, who have committed no riot-related offences—indeed, no offences at all—and will be made innocent victims of Clause 91? The Government say that the Bill is about victims, but this clause creates victims.
	The amendment to delete Clause 91 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. It is that amendment that we will support if a vote is called.

Baroness Hamwee: With the leave of the House, just to pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the information that I had from the chief executive of Wandsworth was that, in that borough after the 2011 riots, 12 notices of seeking possession were served, which is the first step in eviction proceedings. That resulted in an outright possession order and subsequent eviction in one case; seven others resulted in possession being granted but suspended on terms or an undertaking being given to the court. That, of course, supports what the noble and learned Baroness said about the court’s position.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This has been a good debate on an important subject, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for bringing it to us today. However, I reiterate that, as with the existing discretionary grounds for possession, the legislation has always contained important safeguards—not least the discretion of the court, at the end of the day. However, this has been recognised by the Government in our amendments, reflecting the key concerns, if not all the concerns, of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	A lot of noble Lords have spoken in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, my noble friend Lord Elton, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. A number of points have been made, all working on a theme.
	To put the debate in context, I remind the House that the Housing Act 1996 already provides for a ground of possession where a tenant, a member of their household or a visitor has been convicted of anti-social behaviour or a criminal offence in the locality—there is the difference—of their property. Many of the issues that noble Lords have pointed to are already familiar to those who have to make the decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the debates in Wandsworth, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for giving us the figures there. Such decisions have to be made by housing authorities and landlords over time in any event, and the courts themselves have to consider the impact not only on the perpetrator of the crime but on the family. This is familiar ground.
	The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked why it was necessary to introduce a special ground for riot-related offences but not for other offences. As I have explained, it is indictable offences concerning a riot that are covered; in general, within the locality, the specific riot-related element is absent. We think it is right that eviction should be an option only where the crime has a direct impact on those living where the offender lives. However, the particular characteristic of looting and rioting is that they can wreck whole communities, which may be distant from where the rioter or perpetrator lives. That makes these crimes a particular case.
	The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Rosser, pointed out that eviction is not tenure-neutral—that it discriminates in favour of owner-occupiers at the expense of those who live in homes under a tenancy. A tenancy presents a contract between a landlord and an individual, and includes obligations on both the landlord and the tenant. One of those obligations is that the tenant must ensure that they and members of their household do not behave in an anti-social way. No such contractual understanding applies to owner-occupiers, so provisions around possession cannot apply in the same way. As I have said, conviction for an indictable offence in the locality of the property already constitutes a ground for possession.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked about the time limit. For future rioting there is no time limit, but this legislation is not, of course, retrospective as regards the 2011 riots; I think noble Lords will understand that. If a person were convicted of a riot-related offence in future years, it could be pursued over time. The courts will consider whether it is reasonable for it to be pursued. Indeed, reasonableness lies at the bottom of the court’s discretion in all cases.

Lord Elton: Forgive my ignorance, but it is important to get this right, and I am left in doubt. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that this was a power given to the court, but earlier the Minister spoke as if the discretion lay with the housing authority. Who actually makes the decision in such cases?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The court does not initiate the action; the housing authority does. The court makes the decision as to whether the action is reasonable. That is the difference. I think all noble Lords would understand that, and I hope I have not confused anybody by any of the ways in which I have described the decision-making process. The point is that there are checks and balances in such a process. Housing authorities live with them all the time.
	I was specifically asked about adult children at university, not living at home and therefore being largely out of the control—or rather, beyond the influence—of their parents, because of the distance involved. The key word is “reasonableness”. It seems to me very unlikely that a landlord would seek possession in those circumstances, and I doubt very much that any court would grant possession on that basis.
	I think it would be a mistake to remove Clause 91 altogether. We in this House have a duty to remember victims: the families whose homes are wrecked and whose jobs are lost. The noble Baroness said the fact that an action has taken place 100 miles away makes no difference. I disagree with her. The consequences of these actions affect people in their homes and in their work. It is important that we make people aware of their responsibility to others through the law and that potential rioters bear in mind that there may be consequences for their tenancy wherever they choose to wreak havoc. This clause does that. It should serve as a deterrent and shows that the public’s views on this issue are not being ignored by the Government. I beg to move.
	Amendment 80A agreed.
	Amendments 80B to 80F
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	80B: Clause 91, page 61, line 42, after “an” insert “indictable”
	80C: Clause 91, page 61, line 44, after “Ground” insert “—
	“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
	“indictable offence” does not include an offence that is triable only summarily by virtue of section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (either way offences where value involved is small);”
	80D: Clause 91, page 62, line 7, leave out “a person” and insert “an adult”
	80E: Clause 91, page 62, line 8, after “an” insert “indictable”
	80F: Clause 91, page 62, line 10, after “Ground” insert “—
	“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
	“indictable offence” does not include an offence that is triable only summarily by virtue of section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (either way offences where value involved is small);”
	Amendments 80B to 80F agreed.
	Amendment 80G
	 Moved by Baroness O'Loan
	80G: Clause 91, leave out Clause 91

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I had expected to have the right to respond to the Minister on the previous amendment. I do not think that the relevant measure has been shown to be necessary, proportionate or in the interests of innocent victims. I beg to move. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Division on Amendment 80G
	Contents 215; Not-Contents 248.
	Amendment 80G disagreed.

Clause 93: The community remedy document
	Amendment 81
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	81: Clause 93, page 64, line 28, at end insert—
	“( ) consultation with the local authority for any part of the area,”
	Amendment 81 agreed.
	Amendment 82 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 83
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	83: Clause 93, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
	“local authority” means—
	(a) in relation to England, a district council, a county council for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
	(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;”
	Amendment 83 agreed.
	Amendment 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 85
	 Moved by Lord Rosser
	85: After Clause 97, insert the following new Clause—
	“Proxy purchasing of tobacco products on behalf of children
	(1) A person commits an offence if he buys or attempts to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers on behalf of a person under the age of 18.
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

Lord Rosser: My Lords, this amendment was also moved by my noble friend Baroness Thornton in Committee, so I do not intend to repeat all the points that were so powerfully made at that time. Needless to say, we were not happy at the Government’s response, which was basically that, because the measures proposed in this amendment would not solve all the problems in relation to young people in the purchasing of tobacco products, it should not be adopted. The amendment has the support of the Association of Convenience of Stores, which represents 33,500 stores, the majority of which sell tobacco products. The ACS welcomes these proposals as a further measure to help to restrict youth access to tobacco products.
	It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18, but it is not an offence for someone to buy tobacco products on behalf of a minor. There is, thus, a gap in the legislation which this amendment seeks to close to bring the position more into line with the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, which has made it an offence to proxy purchase alcohol. Proxy purchasing is one means by which young people gain access to tobacco products. A recent survey has shown that, in 2012, 8% of pupils had asked somebody to buy cigarettes on their behalf and nine out of 10 were successful at least once. We are not saying that tobacco proxy sales are the only means by which children receive their supply of cigarettes—there is a variety of means for this—but we are saying that it is one of the predominant ways, hence this amendment.
	Issues were raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Crawley concerning the need for proper enforcement and adequate surveillance if moves were made to tackle proxy sales of tobacco. That comes down to providing adequate resources, including for
	local authority trading standards organisations. However, we are talking about sales that adversely affect the health of young people and we should be prepared to act, as they have in Scotland, where there is an offence of proxy selling tobacco. That has the support of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, which has said:
	“Scotland introduced regulation criminalising the proxy purchasing of cigarettes, where adults purchase cigarettes on behalf of children in April 2011. The TMA and its members supports this legislation. Proxy purchasing was identified in NHS data as one of the most common sources of tobacco for young people”.
	The Minister said in Committee that the Government had an open door on this issue, and my noble friend Lady Thornton invited them to think further on this matter before Report stage, which we are at today. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to give a more positive response to this amendment than he was able to do in Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, my name is added to this amendment, which I feel is very important. We know that when young people start smoking, their addiction potential and the long-term harms are very great. There is good evidence that children get cigarettes by proxy either, particularly in the case of younger children, by stealing from their own families or by purchasing single cigarettes from other children at school. However, a cohort in the older, middle-teens bracket seems to obtain cigarettes more through proxy purchasing. Quite often, with a very small incentive added to the cost of the cigarettes, they use a drug abuser or somebody else to do the purchasing for them. The retailers—the small shops—which sell cigarettes find themselves in a really difficult position. Rightly, they are not allowed in law to sell directly to the youngster, yet they are aware that there is no lever in terms of proxy purchasing, although it is they who would be prosecuted rather than the person doing the proxy purchasing.
	It is important to bring the law into line with legislation on alcohol purchasing. The harms from tobacco are in a different group from those relating to alcohol, but they should not be underestimated.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken on an amendment supported by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association.
	It seems to me self-evident that the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, just make so much sense. It is entirely sensible to bring the law into line with that governing the proxy sale of alcohol and to follow the practice which has been adopted in Scotland with regard to the proxy purchase of tobacco. Persuading young people not to smoke is something to which we in this House have devoted a lot of attention. When we return to the Children and Families Bill at the end of the month, we will have an opportunity to do something on the standard packaging of cigarettes and on smoking in cars where children are present. This is also an important measure, which will make it more difficult for youngsters to start—and thus become addicted to—this terrible, dangerous habit.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it seems that in Scotland the provisions which are in force have not been as effective as one would have hoped. I am not sure that the laws against proxy purchasing of alcohol have been terribly effective. I would be concerned if bringing in a further measure which failed to achieve what we wanted to see was a deterrent to anything more effective. Is the Minister aware of what the police think about this? After all, enforcement is what matters when one is introducing a new offence.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, when we debated this issue on 4 December, we agreed that, because smoking is largely an addiction taken up during childhood or adolescence, reducing the availability of tobacco to young people is important if we are to succeed in reducing overall smoking uptake. This new clause seeks to create a new criminal offence of an adult purchasing, or attempting to purchase, tobacco products on behalf of a child or young person under the age of 18. This act is commonly known by the phrase, “proxy purchasing”.
	While smoking prevalence among young people has declined considerably in recent years, there are still each year around 300,000 young people in England under the age of 16 who try smoking for the first time. As a starting point, we must continue to take action to encourage adults to quit smoking. If smoking is seen by young people as a normal part of everyday life, they are much more likely to become smokers themselves. The Government’s Tobacco Control Plan for England is clear that, to promote health and well-being, we will work to encourage communities to reshape social norms, so that tobacco becomes less desirable, less acceptable and less accessible. We aim to stop the perpetuation of smoking from one generation to the next.
	We need to think carefully about whether creating a proxy purchase offence would have an impact on how accessible tobacco is to children and young people, and whether it would have a meaningful impact on reducing smoking rates among young people. Obtaining cigarettes from retailers is just one of many avenues by which young people access tobacco. We know that children and young people obtain their cigarettes from a wide range of sources. Some young people take tobacco from their parents, from other family members or from older friends. In such circumstances, no proxy purchase has occurred. Introducing a new proxy purchase offence would not tackle that particular way of getting tobacco.
	I understand that introducing a proxy purchase offence for tobacco is supported by some retailer organisations, including the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. Let me be clear that I recognise the important role played by retailers in ensuring that tobacco products are sold in accordance with the existing age-of-sale legislation. I also want to recognise the important work that retailer organisations have played in recent years to support their members in meeting age-of-sale requirements.
	I realise the difficulties that some retailers face, and I understand why some feel that it should be an offence to buy tobacco on behalf of under-18s. I also
	understand that the creation of a proxy purchasing offence has the support of the tobacco industry—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the creation of effective and practicable legislation should be informed by evidence. In the area of proxy purchasing, the Government’s current view is that we want to see evidence that a proxy purchase offence would be effective both in reducing young people’s access to tobacco and in having a deterrent effect on those adults who are prepared to buy cigarettes on behalf of children and young people.
	In fact, I am concerned that some of the evidence that is currently available suggests that creating a proxy purchasing offence would have only limited benefit. For example, a Scottish study published in August 2013 looked at how young Scottish smokers living in disadvantaged communities obtained their cigarettes. The study concluded that the introduction of a proxy purchasing offence in Scotland had had little discernible impact.
	Nevertheless, that is not to say that evidence does not exist, and I encourage those who support this amendment to provide evidence of the likely public health benefits of creating a proxy purchasing offence to the Department of Health for further consideration. Proxy purchasing of tobacco is an area that the Department of Health is keeping under review, and any further evidence that is provided will be carefully considered. I assure noble Lords that I will draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Howe to the debate we are having on the subject this afternoon.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, those in support of a proxy purchase offence point to Scotland, where the offence was introduced in April 2011. While I understand that a light-touch approach has been taken on enforcement and that the legislation has been in place only for a few years, I note that only one fixed penalty notice has been imposed since the offence was introduced, and that there have been no convictions. Furthermore, whether the legislation has had any deterrent effect is also not clear.
	The statistics for the similar offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol show that convictions are few and far between in that area, too, in no small part because of the burden of proof required. Furthermore, the alcohol offence includes a defence that the purchaser had no reason to suspect that the individual they bought the alcohol for was under 18. This amendment does not address that point.
	Whether local authorities want the creation of a proxy purchasing offence is not at all clear at the moment. After all, they rather than the police would be responsible for enforcement. The Minister responsible for public health made it clear during a debate on this issue in the House of Commons in October that the Government would be happy to hear the views of local authorities on the potential for effective enforcement, or to hear of good examples of existing local measures to reduce access to tobacco by young people. I also call on those in the public health community to provide this sort of evidence for the creation of a proxy purchasing offence. I want to be clear that we are not rejecting the creation of a proxy purchasing offence outright, but we need to give the matter further consideration.
	While we understand the views of retailers and the tobacco industry on proxy purchasing, the Department of Health will continue to work with local authorities and the public health community to understand their views. I want to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health will also keep under review relevant evidence and experience from elsewhere. I again encourage those with evidence to make it available; I cannot reiterate that enough.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the evidence is supplied, how will the Government deal with it? If we do not agree the amendment, the Minister would have to wait until further primary legislation was brought forward. Would the Government consider implementing a clause of this kind by order rather than placing it in the Bill?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think that I can answer that best by saying that if the evidence were provided and the Government were persuaded that creating this offence was a practical and effective way of dealing with a policy issue that I am sure all noble Lords in the Chamber agree with, they would wish to see it introduced through primary legislation. However, I am not in a position to be definitive in my answer, and I think that my noble friend will understand the reasons for that. I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to reducing the availability of tobacco to children and young people. However, our actions must be guided by evidence and effectiveness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rosser: I would be grateful if the Minister would first clarify what he has just said. One interpretation is that the Government do not really intend to do anything further themselves but are urging anyone else who thinks that there is any evidence to put it in front of them. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister is saying. Obviously, if anyone else does have evidence on this issue, of course they should submit it to the Government—but are the Government themselves seeking to do anything to ascertain or produce evidence? The Robinson and Amos study of 2010 looked at how young people’s sourced cigarettes and attempted to circumvent underage sales. It concluded that there was a problem, and one suggestion was that regular national smoking surveys should include questions that would capture more accurately the nature and extent of proxy purchases. What I am asking the Minister is whether it is now purely up to other people to put the evidence in front of the Government, or are the Government, through the Department of Health, actually doing any work themselves to seek to ascertain evidence of their own?
	The amendment that I moved would be a key tool by which the authorities would know that there was a problem in a particular location because of evidence that proxy purchasing was taking place. Again, is the noble Lord’s response that it is basically up to everyone else to provide the Government with evidence, or is he saying, “If you have any evidence, provide it to us, but we are also”—whether it be through the Department of Health or anyone else—“seeking that evidence ourselves”?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Perhaps I may respond to that point. The Government are determined to try to stamp out smoking as a habit, particularly among young people, so they are being proactive. However, what I am saying on this particular issue and this particular amendment is that the advocates of proxy purchasing as an offence—the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, drew attention to the wide number of people who are, and I said it myself in my speech—will be helped in their advocacy if they can provide the Government with the information they need to make sure that if at a future date they choose to implement such a policy through legislation, they will have the information on which to base that decision.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I want to make a point about the evidence. It may be my fault, but I am not entirely clear what evidence the Minister is looking for. It is quite difficult, until such a measure is in force, to know whether it will be effective. Of course the Scottish experience is there as an example, and it may be that the noble Lord is relying on that, but the fact is that until the measure is actually put on to the statute book, you cannot be absolutely certain one way or the other that it will be effective. On the other hand, there is certainly evidence, which has been referred to, that people with knowledge of the way these things work are asking for the measure. Is that not evidence to justify putting the measure on to the statute book, taking the view that it may do some good and would certainly do no harm?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have always been cautious about taking the latter point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has made. I always appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s contributions, but just putting something on the statute book because it might work is probably not a particularly good way of going about things.
	Having said that, the Government are serious about evaluating this issue. We know that it has been rather disappointing in Scotland—I think the noble and learned Lord would know that from his own experience—and I gave some illustration of that. It may not be the solution, but it is certainly a possible solution, and I urge the House to allow the Government to evaluate that in a proper fashion.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, if I may make one small point—

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I remind the House that we are on Report and that, after the Minister has spoken, unless it is a point of clarification or elucidation, normal convention is that there are no further interventions.

Lord Rosser: I note what the Minister has said about the situation in Scotland. I do not know whether that means he has had further information since we discussed it in Committee, but the Government said then:
	“The Scottish Government, who we have talked to about this issue, say they do not currently hold any information about the numbers of convictions or, as yet, any evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 279.]
	It appears from what the Minister has just said that, since 4 December, the Scottish Government have now said to the Westminster Government that the provision is not working. I do not know whether the Minister has had that information since we discussed it in Committee.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do not want to give that impression. I am not prejudging this and I simply gave an evaluation. The results are disappointing because there have been no convictions and just one offence has been reported.

Lord Rosser: That is slightly different from what was said in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on behalf of the Government, referred to the fact that, as far as the Scottish Government were concerned, there had been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences. However, I will leave it at that and do not intend the pursue the issue any further.
	I would like to think that the Government’s view is that they will play a part in seeking to evaluate the evidence for the measures set out in this amendment and that it is not simply up to other people to provide it to them. I hope that is what I can draw from what the Minister has said. I might have drawn the wrong interpretation, so I will not say that I will withdraw the amendment on that basis, but, in the hope that that is the correct interpretation and that the Government in fact intend to take an active role in evaluating the evidence and not simply rely on others to provide it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 85 withdrawn.
	Amendment 86 not moved.
	Amendment 86A
	 Moved by Baroness Gale
	86A: Before Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
	“Dog control notice
	(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
	(a) states that he or she is of that belief;
	(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;
	(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice;
	(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and
	(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.
	(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
	(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;
	(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;
	(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;
	(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and
	(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.
	(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
	(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
	(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
	(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in a wild state.”

Baroness Gale: My Lords, Amendment 86A has been tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Donaghy, who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening. I spoke to a similar amendment in Committee and wish to raise the matter of dog control notices once again.
	My main reason for doing so is that organisations involved in this field still feel very strongly that dog control notices, rather than what is proposed in the Bill, are the best way forward. Those organisations include the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Communication Workers Union, as well as individual campaigners, many of whom have suffered as a result of attacks by dogs and, in some cases, have seen their loved ones killed in dog attacks. They have consistently argued that community protection notices will not work as well as dog control notices and strongly feel that we need dog control notices rather than the community protection notices which the Government propose.
	The Government believe that community protection notices will be sufficient to address a range of anti-social behaviour problems including dangerous dog attacks and the need to promote responsible dog ownership. The use of a CPN, in conjunction with an acceptable behaviour contract, is meant to have a similar impact to issuing a dog control notice. The Bill states that CPNs will address issues of,
	“a persistent or continuing nature”.
	In practice, however, CPNs will be issued only after an attack has taken place and a written notice has been issued. A CPN requires that there be an existing complaint about a detrimental impact on a community’s quality of life, and it could involve a costly, painful and bureaucratic prosecution and investigation process for victims as well as for local councils.
	Dog control notices directly target irresponsible ownership and will be pre-emptive. The preventive measures they contain address both repeat offenders and one-off attacks which affect individuals, not just communities, much earlier on. I believe that DCNs would be a better approach and the RSPCA’s statistics
	fully support that conclusion. In 2012 the RSPCA issued more than 12,000 informal advice notices—which in practice are similar to DCNs—in England and Wales. The compliance rate was 93%, an extremely high figure which was maintained at around that level for a number of years. The numbers show that DCNs not only work but work well.
	In 2012, dog attacks cost the NHS more than £9.5 million. I said in Committee that 17 people have been killed by dogs since 2005, including nine children, but that figure has now increased and, sadly, 19 people have been killed. It is estimated that more than 200,000 people are attacked every year, with more than 6,000 injuries treated by the NHS in 2011-12. One in six of those attacks were on children under 10.
	The issue of dog control cannot be dealt with under this catch-all policy. Many charities and organisations have spent much time and effort trying to educate the public about responsible dog ownership and many dog owners have responded to that. Most dog owners do their best to care not just for their dog but also about their dog’s behaviour. Owners must be held responsible for dogs that cause problems.
	In Northern Ireland, the use of dog control orders in conjunction with dog licensing has been very successful. Has the Minister looked at how it works in Northern Ireland, and can we learn lessons from that experience? Can he say why he is so adamant on this point? He has listened to the campaigning organisations, but why has he failed to impress on them a belief that CPNs are better than DCNs? The individuals and organisations which have been campaigning are the experts in this area, and the individuals concerned have strong personal reasons for campaigning on it. If community protection notices rather than DCNs are included in the Bill, can the Minister say what sort of publicity and additional funding will be provided to ensure that we have the best possible outcome in reducing the number of dog attacks and safeguarding people against dog attacks in future? We are all aiming to achieve that objective in this Bill and the orders. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I feel a little torn, having read the amendment, because I would heartily support it. In fact, I proposed two Private Member’s Bills which set out many of the provisions in the amendment. I would support the amendment, but we are where we are, with the Government having proposed the legislation. I have been working with organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and others for four or five years now, so I know their commitment to dog control notices. I believe that the Government have taken on board a large number of the arguments put forward. The department should be commended for the amount of work it has done to listen and to propose amendments to deal with some of the concerns raised about the Bill as drafted.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has a very good point. It would be wrong not to say that I think in my heart that dog control notices would be an excellent idea. However, I believe that the Bill will now go a great deal of the way to meeting many of the assessments that we set out. It sets out to defend assisted dogs for the blind. It sets out to deal with the issue of dog
	attacks in private residences. It sets out clearly in the guidance how the local authority should try to deal with many of the issues.
	Obviously, this is a complicated piece of legislation and we are changing 11 other pieces of legislation to fit it in. I would have preferred a separate piece of legislation on dogs. However, that was met with hostility from all sides of the House when I raised it a number of times—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Not from me.

Lord Redesdale: Of course not; the noble Baroness is quite right, we did not clash on that occasion. I believe that the Government have listened and the position has moved forward. I know that many organisations would have preferred dog control notices. However, the work that the Government have put in to making the guidance a readable and understandable document and the flexibility of the department in ensuring that it is a workable document, should—this is, of course, the aim—reduce the number of dog attacks. It should also go some way to addressing the real problems introduced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in causing animal welfare issues for so many dogs and so many problems for a lot of owners throughout the country.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 86B and 86C, which propose to extend and strengthen the protection to any protected animal. As Amendment 86A also refers to “any protected animal”, it is reasonable to group the three amendments, but I make the point that even if dog control notices are not accepted, there is still a case under the Bill to extend protection to animals in addition to assistance dogs; I should like briefly to make that case.
	The Bill has the commendable aim of seeking to encourage responsible dog ownership and management in a preventive way to reduce attacks on and injury to humans. It extends protection to assistance dogs, which is welcome, presumably on the grounds that they are very important to their owners and perhaps also because such attacks may be indicative of a lack of control of those other dogs which might ultimately present a hazard to humans. I would argue that those same points apply to any pet, and especially dogs and cats.
	The social benefit of pets to their owners is well known and acknowledged. Attacks on dogs or cats by a particular dog may well indicate a lack of control on the part of that dog owner and may presage serious attacks on humans.
	There are no accurate figures for the numbers of dog-on-dog or dog-on-cat attacks. It is reasonable to presume that there are many hundreds of dog-on-dog attacks, with serious consequences for at least one of the dogs, and I am informed by Cats Protection that in 2013, 101 attacks on cats were reported. That number is undoubtedly an underestimate, but of those 101 attacks, 89% were fatal. Those attacks are extremely distressing to the owners.
	Although it might be argued that various existing laws can be used to tackle this problem, it is simply not happening, for a variety of reasons inherent in the limitations of the laws. As a result, in its evidence to the EFRA Select Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers indicated the limitations of current legislation, saying that enforcers were,
	“without adequate legislation to deal swiftly, and proportionately, with attacks by dogs on other animals”.
	Moreover, in its report, the EFRA Select Committee recommended that the Government should consider the potential to extend the law to any protected animal. Indeed, the RSPCA, the BVA and Cats Protection have jointly called for such wider protection. I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration. Will he commit to taking this away for further thought?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for bringing these issues before us for debate. We had a fairly lengthy debate on dogs in Committee. It was quite illuminating at certain points and also helpful in outlining the extent of the problem we face. Even since that debate took place there have been several quite dreadful attacks on people, with some serious consequences, which shows the need for strong action.
	In Committee I acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and reported on the scale of the attacks. I do not intend to repeat all the figures. They are on the record and, in any event, they will have increased in the past couple of months. However, they are truly shocking, and, given that 23,000 postal workers have been attacked in the past three years, I wonder how many suffered delivering our Christmas mail.
	Something the Minister said in Committee gave me cause for concern. I have no doubt that he is convinced that the Government’s actions will work. I was very pleased that in Committee he committed to reviewing the effectiveness of government measures, and I trust he is willing to confirm that review in your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would also welcome a report back on how the Government’s measures are working if no amendment is agreed.
	The Minister also said in Committee:
	“I hope the Committee will agree that it is better for a dog owner to address the problem themselves rather than to be compelled to do so under the terms of a notice”.—[Official Report, 02/12/13; col. 106.]
	It is precisely because some dog owners do not address the problem themselves that there is the need for a dog control notice. If every dog owner could be trusted to take the necessary action, no notices would be required. It is because so many owners are negligent in that regard, and dogs are able to attack people—or, as we have heard, other dogs or animals—that there needs to be further protection and further action. I believe that dog control notices are the way forward.
	When a dog attacks a person or another dog, it may not be malicious on the part of the owner. I think I stressed that. It may be a lack of awareness, but the consequences are the same in either case. Dog control notices provide the ability for local authorities to take action to prevent such attacks. A wide range of organisations supported the introduction of dog control
	notices—the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the British Veterinary Association, the pet charity, Blue Cross, the Communication Workers Union and the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the Minister will consider bringing this forward solely to try to address what I know he and the House regard as a serious problem. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that we hope to have a better response from the Minister and that he will give some ground on the issue of dog control notices. If not, can he indicate that the review he referred to in Committee will be reported to your Lordships’ House so we can judge the effectiveness of the existing legislation?
	The noble Lord, Lord Trees, brings his professional expertise to this debate—for which we are grateful—with his Amendments 86B and 86C. I was shocked at the number of attacks he referred to on other animals and cats. I was not aware that it was so great. I think it reinforces the need for preventive measures and, undoubtedly, prevention is the preferable way forward. His amendments are helpful and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. The suggestion that he take them away and consider them and bring them back if he thinks there is merit in them and they can improve the Bill is very helpful and wise.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing it back for us to consider, having had this debate in Committee. In a number of instances we are going over ground we have discussed before, but it is important that we try to set the Government’s position in some context. As noble Lords will know, I was a Minister in Defra—and, indeed, had quite a lot to do with some of the early talks about how to deal with dogs and the dangers that out-of-control dogs present not only to postmen and people visiting houses but to people going about their daily lives.
	While it is true that some organisations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, support dog control notices, it is similarly true that some do not—and it is by no means the case that the scales are weighted on one side of the argument. That aside—it is history really—the animal welfare organisations have all agreed to suspend their campaigns for dog control notices and to work with us to ensure that the same aims may be achieved through the community protection notice.
	I very much welcome this constructive approach from the sector. It is a genuine partnership, working with the Government to ensure that measures may be as effective as possible. That really answers the noble Baroness’s point as to how the facilities offered by the community protection notice will be publicised and how it will be implemented. It will be implemented with the co-operation of the dog charities, and I expect this dialogue to continue after implementation; I know my colleagues in Defra will listen to these organisations on the question of how effective the implementation is.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested a report for Parliament. I am sure that this House will readily take to a debate on this subject a few years hence, when the new regime has had a chance to have an impact. I am confident that it would be a positive debate; I would like to think so.
	As I said, Defra officials are in regular contact with the national policing lead on dangerous dogs, as well as other units involved in this work, so that the new measures may be as useful and as user-friendly as possible in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Reference has been made to the guidance that has been produced for practitioners. The Local Government Association, representing those who will be using the measures—they are likely to be the enforcers—has been consistent in its message that it does not see the need for an additional power specifically in relation to dogs.
	The Government agree with the underlying aim of the amendment: to hold irresponsible dog owners to account and, more importantly, to change their behaviour. However, we have already provided the necessary powers in the Bill, so it remains the case that we cannot support the amendment. Effective use of the provisions in the Bill should see an increase in responsible dog ownership and a reduction in the number of dog bites and dog incidents.
	I make it clear that the community protection notice can do all that the dog control notice proposed in the noble Baroness’s amendment can do. In fact, I will be so bold as to go further and say that it can do more, because it avoids the prescriptive nature of issue-specific notices and allows practitioners to respond to all manifestations of behaviour that negatively affect the community. Focusing on the impact of the behaviour ensures that dog owners are not unjustly penalised and that communities are protected from existing, as well as new, forms of irresponsible dog ownership.
	The community protection notice provides a mechanism so that officers faced with a case of irresponsible or anti-social dog ownership may decide on the most effective way to stop and prevent future recurrences of that behaviour. It may be by requiring the dog to be on a lead in certain areas, fixing inadequate fencing, attaching a letterbox guard or requiring the owner to attend training classes. The officer, in consultation with welfare experts where necessary, may use the notice to educate owners and increase responsibility.
	It may be helpful to provide an example to noble Lords of how the CPN could work in practice. Many noble Lords will have heard about terrifying and unacceptable incidents in which postal workers have been attacked or regularly have to face the unpredictable and, at times, out-of-control behaviour of dogs at certain properties. Clause 98, in amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, corrects the current legal lacuna and will ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can take forward prosecutions where postal workers and others are injured, or indeed fear injury, by a dog while on private property.
	However, let us suppose that the threshold is not met; perhaps the dog is out of control but not dangerously so, as defined by the 1991 Act, but is nevertheless barking excessively at the postal worker or jumping up at the letterbox. I think that all noble Lords have had enough doorstep delivering experience to know exactly what we mean. Under the new powers we are introducing, the postal worker may alert the authorities and report the behaviour. I should take a moment to congratulate Royal Mail on its sophisticated reporting and logging systems for these incidents, which have proved useful in tackling such irresponsible ownership.
	The local authority may investigate and, if it is satisfied that the test for the community protection notice has been met, serve a written warning that such behaviour is evidently detrimentally affecting the quality of life in the locality—in this case, that of a postal worker, although other people may be affected. An officer from the authority may wish to visit the address and discuss the issue with the owner, or may simply post the order as a warning to the owner. The warning would state that the officer considers the threshold to have been met and would detail the offending behaviour. It would make clear that the officer will serve a community protection notice should the behaviour not change or stop, and that, over time, this may result in prosecution and a criminal record.
	For many owners, this level of intervention will be sufficient, and the engagement from an officer will encourage the owner to consider the opportunities for better education and training. However, if the warning is not heeded, a community protection notice could be served, which may make a number of requirements of the owner: for example, that they attend dog training classes with their dog and/or attach a letterbox guard or similar item, as I have already illustrated. The owner will be provided with the opportunity to become more responsible and the postal worker will be better protected. Should the owner attend training classes, the dog’s welfare may also be improved. All this can be achieved with a community protection notice, fully negating the need for an additional power in the form of a dog control notice.
	I hope that on further reflection the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will agree to give the existing provisions in the Bill a chance to show that they can be used effectively to address this issue. We shall, of course, keep their effectiveness under review. I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will be keeping a watchful eye on the implementation of the Bill.
	Perhaps I might reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we will keep all new powers in Parts 1 and 4 of the Bill, including the CPN, under review. We are committed to post-legislative review of this Bill, as for all others, and we will ensure that the review looks specifically at the effectiveness of CPNs in dealing with dog-related issues. I am mindful of the debates that we have had on this topic. As I have said, I am sure that the House will want to consider and debate the outcome of such a review.
	I turn to Amendments 86B and 86C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which relate to dog attacks on protected animals—in other words, animals kept largely as pets. I am conscious that a number of organisations in the charitable sector would support an amendment of this kind to provide a specific offence in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for a dog attack of this nature. However, the Dangerous Dogs Act is a public safety measure; it is not about providing protection for animals more widely. These amendments would see police forces, and in some cases local authorities, potentially having to investigate reports of dogs chasing other dogs, cats and, for that matter, any of the many other animals kept as pets, to ascertain whether an
	offence has been committed under the Act and whether a prosecution should be forthcoming. I do not believe that this is the best way of tackling the problem of dog attacks on other animals.
	I recognise the concern of pet owners with regard to dog attacks. I have seen for myself the horrific reports where animals have been injured or killed as a result of dog attacks. Such incidents are abhorrent and can be indicators of wider problems with the dog, such as a lack of socialisation with other animals. However, I suggest to noble Lords that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the appropriate vehicle for taking cases forward with regard to attacks on protected animals. Rather, I would maintain that the solution lies in existing legislation that is better suited to addressing this type of incident, and in the anti-social behaviour provisions in the Bill.
	While many of us regard our pets almost as members of the family, in law pet animals are defined as property. As such, where a cat or dog has been injured or, I dare say, killed as a result of a dog attack, then it would be possible to bring forward a prosecution against the dog owner under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This covers the intentional or reckless damage or destruction of another person’s property and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment and a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or a £5,000 fine, or both, when tried summarily.
	There are also some circumstances in which Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to dog attacks on other animals. I am aware of a recent case in Manchester where an Akita attacked and injured a miniature Yorkshire terrier so severely that it had to be put down. The owner of the Akita was prosecuted under both Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act. The owner was ordered to pay compensation and court costs and complete unpaid work. Thus the existing legislation has been seen to apply in the case of a dog-on-dog attack.
	One of the reasons why this sort of case can succeed is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies where there is reasonable apprehension of injury to a person. It is not necessary for injury to be caused to a person for an offence to be committed. It is likely that, where a dog attacks another animal, the nature of the aggression shown by the dog means that people in the vicinity would have a reasonable fear of injury to themselves. In such a situation, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are well placed to determine whether a prosecution meets the public interest and evidence test. In all cases, where a dog attacks another animal, criminal proceedings may also be brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for causing unnecessary suffering to the animal that has been attacked. This carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a £20,000 fine or both.
	Moreover, should the case not meet the threshold of any of the other offences to which I have referred, but the incident poses concern—as an attack on a pet is likely to do—both members of the public and the authorities may make a civil complaint to a magistrate under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, where the dog has been out of control. Based on the balance of probabilities, a court may order the destruction of the dog or impose conditions to mitigate the risk posed by
	it, such as keeping the dog on a lead or muzzled at certain times. There are many cases where the courts have taken action in this way.
	I hope I have demonstrated that this is not an area where legislation has been deficient. With the arrival of the community protection notice in the Bill that we are seeking to enact at present, we have an opportunity to ensure that responsible dog ownership is a feature of people undertaking the responsibility of having an animal in their care.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and the Minister for his reply. When I spoke to my amendment, my noble friend Lady Donaghy was not able to be here. I am very pleased to see that she is now in her place; I know that she supported the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, too, for his contribution. I agree with him that we need a separate piece of legislation on dogs, but we will not go down that road tonight. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his contribution on protected animals, and my noble friend Lady Smith for her contribution and her support on this matter. She spoke about the need for a review, and in his reply the Minister said that we could perhaps have a debate in a few years’ time. I am not quite sure whether he meant that that would be the review or that there will be a review and we can then debate it.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: If I could just explain, there will be a review of all this legislation; we are committed to post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I am suggesting that if the House wished to focus particularly on dog issues, I am sure that would be considered a suitable subject for debate by the usual channels.

Baroness Gale: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that we will have a debate on this matter. He said that he believed that the community protection notices would be as effective as, or even more effective than, the dog control notices. We all hope that they will be as effective as the Minister hopes they will be. It is good to know that the campaigning organisations will now be working with the Minister to improve the legislation and ensure that it works. With that, I think we made our case strongly. I am sorry the Minister was not able to accept it, but we want the new Bill and the community protection notice to work effectively. As we cannot have what we wanted, I ask the Minister to work with the organisations, and work together now, to make sure that it will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 86A withdrawn.
	Clause 98: Keeping dogs under proper control
	Amendments 86B and 86C not moved.
	Amendment 86D
	 Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon
	86D: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
	“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
	(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
	“28B Assessing public safety
	(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
	(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
	(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
	(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) insert—
	“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, in moving this amendment I say first that we welcome the measures that the Government have already taken in the Bill on firearms, as far as they go. That is why I have brought forward to your Lordships’ House today a slightly different amendment from that which I proposed in Committee. I understood the concerns that were raised then in relation to mental health; although it still needs further discussion, the comments made were fair.
	Our amendment calls for greater effectiveness in background checks when considering applications for firearms licences. The specific reference and concern we have relates to cases of domestic violence. The amendment seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1968, so that where there is substantiated evidence of a history of,
	“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse,”
	it would provide a presumption against being awarded a licence unless evidence could be provided that there were grounds for exemption.
	I provided statistics in Committee, so I do not intend to repeat those. However, I feel that many noble Lords and the public would be quite shocked that someone, where there is substantiated evidence of a history of domestic violence or violent conduct, can gain legal possession of a firearm. The Government have issued guidance on this, which the noble Lord repeated in his response to the Committee. As welcome as this guidance is, it is not legislation, and it therefore carries an element of discretion which makes it very difficult for the police.
	I gave an example in Committee of the case of Michael Atherton. He was convicted of the murders of his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. Michael Atherton had a long history of domestic violence, but was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer who first examined his application made comments on it. These comments are quite chilling. The licensing officer said:
	“4 domestics—last one 24/4/04—was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse—have we sufficient info—refuse re public safety”.
	In the end, amazingly, Durham Constabulary came to the conclusion that it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse.
	We all know that public authorities, such as the police, often have to take the safe decision in line with legal advice, because they cannot afford the cost of legal challenge. Many of us will be aware of cases, particularly in local authorities, where councils wish to take one decision, but are advised that if they do that it could be challenged, and they cannot afford a challenge. So sometimes decisions are taken, not because those taking the decision believe it is the right thing to do, but because they are frightened of the cost of defending it. Too often, the police find that when they refuse a licence, that decision can be overturned by the courts. Last year the deputy chief constable of Hampshire Police attempted to prevent a man keeping shotguns after a series—not just one—of allegations of serious sexual crimes, including against a 17 year-old girl. That was just one of a string of licensing refusals that Hampshire Police made that were overturned, each one costing thousands of pounds.
	The IPCC investigation into Michael Atherton’s case recommended that new legislation was needed alongside guidance. In 75% of the cases where women have been killed by guns, it has been classed as a domestic incident. In 2009, 100% of female gun deaths were in domestic situations. The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of these deaths involved legally held weapons. How many lives could be saved by this amendment?
	On the fees element of the amendment, I still do not understand the Government’s position. The noble Lord tried to enlighten me in Committee and failed. Why are the Government so reluctant to introduce full cost recovery in firearms licences? They do so in so many other areas. We want to see better and more effective checks and better support for the police when they have reasonable concerns for public safety if they were to issue a licence. We recognise that more effective checks would cost money; there would be an additional cost. That is why this is so important, especially when we are seeing such large cuts in police budgets. At present, the Government are subsidising firearms licences at the cost of around £18 million a year—and you have to ask why. If the Minister cannot accept our amendment, will he answer this one question? How do the Government justify such a huge subsidy for firearms licences?
	These are very important issues, and I believe that these measures could save lives. I cannot think of anything more important for a government flagship Bill on crime than measures that have the ability to save lives. I am grateful to the Minister for briefly discussing this issue with me. He is always prepared for, and open to, discussions. I hope that he can accept the amendment. If he cannot accept it today in its entirety, can he look specifically at the issues relating to domestic violence? Surely those victims deserve our support and protection, and when the checks undertaken by a chief police officer in an application for a firearms licence uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption should be that the licence application will be refused, unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant of their suitability to
	possess a weapon. It would be helpful if the Minister could have discussions before Third Reading on that specific aspect of the Bill, and if we could make progress before then.
	The discretion that the police have now fetters them, because they are not really able to use it, as I have outlined. We have a situation whereby people with a history of violence can obtain a licence even though the police want to refuse but do not really have the powers to do so. I hope that the Minister can accept my offer of further discussions in the spirit in which it was made. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: I do not envy my noble friend the Minister having to deal with this issue. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, have brought up are very much ingrained in the minds of anybody who comes from my part of the world, in Scotland. It was the very same thing with a certain Mr Hamilton, who had been found guilty of sexually assaulting children and then went on to carry out the Dunblane massacre of primary school children. The net effect of that was the passing of the Act banning handguns, which does not address the issue of whether the police will bring charges when they see the seriousness of a situation, or understand that there is a risk in issuing a licence to someone who might appeal and cost them a lot of money. Of course, the banning of handguns has been counterproductive because nowadays, if you go around anywhere in the UK, the only people who have handguns are criminals, who know very well that, if they go into any situation, they will not be in danger of meeting someone with a handgun.

The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I have an interest to declare as the holder of a firearms licence. I understand very well what the noble Baroness was saying in introducing her amendment, but we must be clear about what is already happening. The amendment refers to the necessity of performing background checks, but I believe they already are being performed. I speak with some experience of dealing with firearms officers in different parts of the country, which I hasten to admit is by no means necessarily a representative sample. None the less, these checks are being dealt with with a good deal of thoroughness. They have access to the police national computer, and the National Firearms Licensing Management System, the domestic violence unit and others are all sources of information. In addition to that, every applicant for a firearms licence must have a sponsor, who has to make a positive statement that they know of no reason, under a whole list of criteria, why that person should not hold a licence.
	Furthermore, there is another element: the applicant must have permission from a landowner on whose land they are going to shoot, or be associated with a club where they are shooting and have the countersignature of the person who is the secretary of the club. So there are a considerable number of safeguards here. However, I am bound to admit that in the Atherton case, as in the Dunblane case and the Hungerford case that went before it, licences were given by the police for weapons, which, in the more historic cases, it was
	totally inappropriate for any private citizen to have possession of. The result of that was that these awful offences occurred.
	With regard to the substantiated evidence of violence, there is already a duty on a police officer not to grant a licence to anyone who is a danger to public safety or the police, or to those of intemperate habits. As I say, there are safeguards. I double-checked with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which very kindly responded to my inquiry for this afternoon. I am not a member of BASC, but it provides the secretarial back-up for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conservation, at whose meetings I am an occasional visitor. With regard to public safety, the chief officer must follow guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Guidance, of course, means just what it says; each case has to be considered to a degree on its merits. I do not really see how it can be any other way. As I see it, firearms officers in the various police forces are taking their responsibilities extremely seriously.
	On the question of full cost recovery, which the noble Baroness has raised before, the difficulty with any cost is that it is potentially a blank cheque of some sort. It takes no cognisance of the police efficiency with which the matter is dealt, nor of wider public safety issues that may lie outside and beyond the specific application. The costs incurred could be very high if the system is not effective. The question then arises—I do not have an answer to this—of how much society should pay for the protection that licences afford, as opposed to costs being recovered from the individual. There are many different walks of life where similar situations apply, such as whether the cost of a driving licence or the grant of a passport covers the full cost of the scrutiny. There are certain things that are done in the name of society and for its protection when it is not considered appropriate to recover the full costs. I made the point in previous dealings on a similar amendment at an earlier stage, and I think that it is probably fair to say, that the present level of the firearms licence fee looks quite low. However, that is a different matter; it is a matter for making an order as to what the fees are, which is rather separate from the question of amending the legislation and the framework for how things are dealt with.
	There are issues about the fact that, notwithstanding all the guidance that is in place, licences for firearms have been granted to people who were patently unfit to receive them. I do not know any way to ensure infallibly that that can never happen in future. It may be impossible to devise a means for the number of people in the country who could be affected by these things, whether they are people with firearms licences who are resident, on a visitor’s permit or whatever. It will be extremely difficult to legislate out all possibility of that sort of thing, although one must always be vigilant—and, of course, they are terrible things that we should strive to prevent happening. However, I am not sure that the amendment would advance things materially as the noble Baroness suggests.

Lord Deben: My Lords, although the amendment is entirely good hearted—I quite understand the reason for it, and the problem it seeks to address is a serious
	one—I fear that I follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in thinking that the difficulty with which we are faced is a belief that, somehow or other, by passing laws we can solve every problem. That is the kernel of this issue.
	The vast majority of people who hold any kind of firearms licence—I declare an interest, as I am one of them—are law abiding and go to huge trouble to ensure that the firearms do not get into the wrong hands, that they are properly locked up, and so on. Already, the very considerable time spent on checking people who have never given any reason for complaint is a source of irritation—although combined with some understanding—to large numbers of people. We must recognise that we already have a very significant amount of regulation in this area.
	We have to ask whether any further regulation of this kind, any further step taken in this direction, will do what is intended. I fear that I come to the conclusion that it will not. One of the difficulties is that those with bad intent seem to be much more able to acquire the means to put that intent into action than we would expect, if that is not our way of life. We rather naively sit here thinking that if we write the right legislation, somehow or other it will corral such people.
	I have great sympathy with my noble friend who has to answer this debate, but I say to him that we have a long history of doing things because we feel that “something must be done”, even if what is done is not helpful but causes considerable expense and further aggravation. I ask him to be extremely careful and to make his response very balanced. We all have sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I suspect that this is not the answer to the problem.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, the worrying thing about the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Smith is the idea that the police decide whether to prosecute on the basis of their chances of winning or losing some court case. That is extremely worrying. It means that the law as put into practice depends on someone’s estimate of whether the police should deal with somebody who might sue them, and who has a big enough legal budget to be able to do that. This seems to call into question the whole legal basis of the way we operate. I very much hope the Minister will explain the situation and say that decisions are not being taken according to the chances in the law court. That seems a complete negation of how we are supposed to operate our society.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, when my childhood friend murdered her husband, she did so with a kitchen knife. It has always been my impression that people who get into that sort of situation domestically use whatever weapon is to hand. I would be very interested if the Minister could provide some evidence as to whether people who hold firearms licences or shotgun licences—I hold both—are more or less likely to murder someone than people who do not hold such licences. Do we actually have a problem here, in the general sense? Looking at things in the round, are we being effective in issuing licences, as we ought to do, to people who are generally less likely to murder someone—or are they more likely to murder someone? What are the statistics for the country as a whole?
	If, as I rather suspect, we find that people who are issued with such licences are generally much more law-abiding than the population as a whole, perhaps the amendment does not address a real problem. Or rather, it addresses not a problem that exists in the round, but a particular problem with how the police are assessing individual cases—when, perhaps, they have evidence that someone is not suitable, and are not taking action on that evidence.
	It is difficult to see what, under subsection (2) of proposed new Section 28B of the Firearms Act, the police could do to get more evidence than they already have as to the suitability or unsuitability of someone to hold a shotgun licence. What is,
	“substantiated evidence … of domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse”,
	if not the records and evidence that the police already hold? Surely they are not going to go casting around for rumours, because such evidence would not be substantiated. It does not seem to me that one could mount a quasi-criminal investigation without any evidence of a crime, merely to see if one could entrap a rumour or two. I do not know what could be done under the amendment that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, is not already being done as part of the process.
	However, if there is a step in the process whereby the police have evidence but feel frightened to act on it—this seemed to be the idea emerging from the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, addressed her amendment—perhaps we should take the action suggested. But first, as I said earlier, I would be interested to know whether we are dealing with a real problem, or whether this is something of a rarity.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we have heard one story about a knife, but I have a good friend in America and his wife took a gun to him. It does happen with guns too.

Lord Lucas: But if one weapon were not to hand, do people not tend to use whatever is to hand? I suspect that we will find that people who own guns are rather less likely to murder people than those who do not.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, we are in danger of having a slightly false debate on this subject. Let us start from the simple fact that firearms and shotguns are, very easily, potentially lethal weapons. What is more, they are lethal weapons that can operate at some distance. They are therefore dangerous items. It has been decided by Parliament, quite properly, that there should be a licensing regime—that checks should be applied to individuals who hold them.
	The amendment is not about comparing the population of those who are licensed firearms holders with those who are not; it is about a very specific sub-category. This is not an amendment that will stop, or is intended to stop, armed robbers. It is not about people who start off with malign intent. It is about the nature of the checks, and how they should be used, in very restricted circumstances. It is about people who would
	set out to acquire a firearm not because they want to rob a bank, but probably for sporting purposes; that is, I assume, the reason why the noble Lords who hold such licences apply for them, and use firearms.
	The amendment suggests that, as part of the checks, if there is a history of the individual concerned having been involved in incidents of,
	“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse”,
	the presumption should be that that person will be denied a licence. This is not about the application of open discretion by police officers. It says that the presumption will be that that individual will not be allowed a weapon.
	This is nothing to do with people who acquire weapons illegally, and nothing to do with people who are trying to acquire weapons for other purposes; it simply says that if people with that particular sort of history apply to legally hold a lethal firearm, the presumption should be that they will not be allowed to do that. I would have thought that was eminently sensible. I find it almost unthinkable that that is not the starting point that will be adopted in your Lordships’ House.
	What is being proposed by this very carefully worded amendment is that, in those cases where there are prima facie reasons that people may lose control and not use the weapons for the purposes for which they have sought a firearms licence—for example, they may murder or attack their partner or be so inebriated or under the influence of drugs that they would use a firearm against another person—the presumption should be that they are not allowed a licence.
	No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others will say, “Hang on, the chiefs of police have discretion in those cases”. However, the point that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made was that, given that there is discretion and given the way in which it operates, that is not sufficient. By passing this amendment, we would give those chief police officers not just a discretion, as we would be saying, “The presumption is that you do not put a lethal firearm in the hands of somebody who has committed domestic violence or has a history of alcohol abuse or drug abuse”. Surely, that provision is sensible, is a safeguard and is something on which we can all agree.

Lord Marland: My Lords, no one bows more than I do to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as I had the pleasure of engaging in debates with her for two and a half years, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that we are in danger of overkill here and I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord opposite. It is clear that we have to generate public confidence and this amendment makes a very good stab at trying to establish it, which is absolutely fundamental.
	However, the process through which people have to go in applying for a firearms licence is incredibly rigorous. The checking process is rigorous, as is the storage process, but there will always be people outside that process who will abuse it, as my noble friend Lord Deben said. The problem with the amendment is that it leaves out a whole range of people who should be included in the category we are discussing. That is why I have drawn the conclusion that legislating for the
	sake of legislating to tighten regulation that is already tightly drawn is not the answer. Like noble Lords on the opposition Benches and those who support the amendment, I understand that public confidence has to be of the utmost. We have to let the police ultimately decide who is able to hold a firearms licence—they, and they alone, should decide that.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for that speech. This has been a useful debate, in which noble Lords have cast around a bit and have perhaps extended the debate beyond the terms of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It may help if I explain how the current regime operates, because we have to consider the amendment in the light of what is already being done to deal with these matters.
	As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the new clause she proposes seeks to create a presumption that, if an applicant for a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate meets one of the stated criteria in her amendment, the police should not grant such a certificate. The stated criteria include violent conduct, evidence of domestic violence and drug or alcohol abuse.
	I share the noble Baroness’s concern about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons. However, under the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. The Firearms Act 1968 specifies that, before a licence can be issued, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can possess a firearm or a shotgun without danger to “public safety or the peace”. That is the basic test, so the law is sound in this respect and there is no need to change it.
	I understand that there are concerns in particular about domestic violence and abuse. The police do take domestic violence and abuse very seriously. If they are called to a domestic violence and abuse incident and they suspect that a person is in immediate danger, they are able to seize any firearms immediately under powers in the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The police would also complete the domestic abuse, stalking and “honour”-based violence risk identification checklist, which asks them to consider the abuser’s occupation and interests and whether this could give them unique access to weapons. It also ensures that the police ask victims whether weapons have been used to hurt them before.
	Moreover, in response to concerns, last July we published new guidance on this issue which provides greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. The guidance makes it clear that, although each case must be considered on its merits, evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that the application should be refused.
	Furthermore, revised firearms guidance, published fully in October, specifies that the police must take seriously intelligence falling short of a conviction and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that forces must have procedures in place to monitor any activity of certificate holders or their associates which has come to the notice of the police, and that following a domestic
	violence incident an immediate review of the suitability of a certificate holder should take place. These recent changes—they are recent changes—underline how vital it is to ensure that those in possession of firearms do not pose a risk, and they serve to make the firearms licensing system stronger.
	The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand the argument being made here. However, I do not consider that this would be the right approach. The law provides the police with discretion in recognition of their responsibility for public safety in local areas, so it is right that chief officers have discretion to assess applications for firearm and shotgun certificates, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide.
	I say in response to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and, indeed, those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who was concerned that the procedures might be deficient, that the test the police must apply in deciding whether to grant a certificate is whether the applicant can be permitted to possess a firearm without causing danger to public safety or the peace. An applicant has a statutory right of appeal to the Crown Court against the police’s decision to refuse a certificate. Therefore, the police will want to be satisfied that they have a rational, cogent and well evidenced justification for a decision to refuse a certificate to enable them to justify their decision in the event of an appeal. While the police may consider the possibility of a successful appeal in deciding whether to refuse a certificate, this factor is not part of the statutory criteria for the decision to grant or refuse a licence and therefore will not be part of the process, which will be based on the test of not endangering public safety or the peace.
	This Government have sought to foster decision-making at a local level and to make it a local responsibility wherever possible. That is what localism means. I would not want to undermine this. Nevertheless, national action can still have a role and can support local decision-making. Accordingly, we are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that the police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide.
	The police are also taking steps to improve consistency and promote high standards across police firearms licensing departments. The College of Policing will be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-reference Home Office guidance. In order to assess standards, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice and is considering whether the findings point to the need for further work to help drive up consistency across the country. Much is being done and this is very much an issue that is part and parcel of everyday activity at this moment.
	The second part of the proposed new clause seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief officers before revising the licence fees, so that they achieve an appropriate level
	of cost recovery. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned this particular factor. I can assure noble Lords that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process. We fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. However, until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees significantly.
	The current fees and licensing structure have remained the same for well over a decade and we accept that it needs to be reviewed. We want the cost and system of licensing firearms to be proportionate and fair. Work will continue to ensure that this happens. This includes the introduction of e-commerce for policing beginning this summer. This IT initiative for police transactions will see much of the licensing process move online, thereby reducing the administrative burden and cost of the current paper-based system.
	I hope I have addressed the issues and the challenge which this amendment presents. I am very happy, of course, to talk to the noble Baroness on any subject which concerns our responsibilities to this House, but I am not persuaded that further legislation is needed on this matter. However, if she feels that she needs a decision, she should press this issue at this stage.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention to detail he has given and for responding so fully to what has been an interesting debate. I am intrigued by some of the comments. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey perhaps hit the nail on the head in trying to bring the debate back to the intent of my amendment.
	In some ways, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Marland, that you cannot legislate out crime, but I am not pretending for one second that by passing this amendment there would never be another incident. You could make that argument for any provision in the Bill. You could argue that you should not have legislation on anti-social behaviour because that will not get rid of it or that you should not have legislation to evict people for riot offences because that will not stop all rioting. That is not an argument for not bringing forward legislation that can make a difference.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, hit the nail on the head. You have to legislate with facts—not in haste. What we are seeking is to ensure the police have the powers they need. I take the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of background checks. Yes, we understand that, and we know that background checks are made. I made this point very clearly in my comments on Michael Atherton’s application, where the licensing officer would have liked to refuse because of evidence of domestic violence—he had received a caution. The licensing officer would have liked to refuse, but for various reasons the police may come back and say, “We do not think we can”. When we read that it has cost Hampshire police thousands of pounds when licences have been challenged, we realise that there is a case here.
	The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that a decision must be taken on its merits, and that is exactly what the police are seeking to do. They want to take decisions
	on their merits, but there is a fear of legal action. The amount of discretion offered means they could be challenged. In the Michael Atherton case, three people were murdered with a legally held shotgun despite a previous caution for—and therefore substantive evidence of—domestic violence. It is worth nothing that after this case the IPCC said that there has to be legislation alongside guidance.
	I do not accept the Minister’s comments. It is not a matter of having evidence but of giving the police the tools they need to act on the evidence they have. That is what the legislation at present does not do. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I do not share his confidence that there is no legislation that could be brought forward to protect the public. The public will be absolutely horrified to know that, where there is evidence of violent behaviour or domestic violence, people can be legally allowed to have firearms. That is quite shocking and I am surprised that it is being defended by noble Lords.
	I am sure that when checks were undertaken on the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marland, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, no evidence was found of violence in their backgrounds, so they were happily given a licence. But there are many people who are not like the noble Lords and who do need to have some checks and balances.

Lord Deben: The noble Baroness has not mentioned me among those who said that but I should like her to include me within the list, otherwise it would be incomplete.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am very happy to include the noble Lord in the list, unless he tells me otherwise. However, the point is valid. The checks are being done now but the police are clear that there are cases where they have felt obliged to issue a licence although the evidence has told them that they should not. On the issue of subsidy—

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am not quite clear about whether the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is not trying to tackle two problems in her amendment—the question of the police’s powers to refuse licences, and fees. Is she trying to do too many things? We might not agree on all these things.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Perhaps I am trying to do too much in one amendment. I have included the fees issue in the amendment—and I am surprised that the Minister defended the £18 million with which the public are subsidising firearms licences—because there will be an extra cost for the additional checks that the police may need to undertake in these cases.
	As I said to the Minister, I was happy to come back and specifically discuss with him a way that we could ensure that people with a history of violence are unable to get a firearms licence. He has rejected that offer. In the interests of public safety, there is no alternative but to press the amendment and test the will of the House.

Division on Amendment 86D
	Contents 172; Not-Contents 227.
	Amendment 86D disagreed.

Amendment 87
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	87: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
	“Assault on workers in public facing roles
	(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
	(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
	(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
	(2) No offence is committed—
	(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
	(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
	(3) In this section—
	“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
	(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and
	(b) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally,
	“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
	(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, having dealt with important amendments regarding dangerous dogs and even more dangerous firearms, we now come to deal with an equally important matter: assaults on workers who deal with the public. It is in the spirit of the shared basic values and the common sense of this House that I am again tabling the amendment that I tabled in Committee, which I hope will command the support of all Peers, regardless of party.
	The amendment sets out to tackle the shocking rate at which our shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, nurses and catering staff, to name but a few, are assaulted at work—in their workplace—every year. In 2012, there were 120,000 attacks against retail staff across the United Kingdom, with 51% of retailers reporting being victims of verbal or physical abuse in the past three months. Incidentally, one in five Asians work in shops, so a particular community faces these kinds of assaults.
	These assaults are perpetrated against ordinary workers, who are often paid the minimum wage and are carrying out extraordinarily important tasks, such as looking after our old people, transporting our workforce or teaching our children. Such assaults can be particularly traumatic, as victims have no choice but to return to the workplace, unlike the general public. They return to the precise location and to the circumstances of the ordeal they faced. That results in increased anxiety and the understandable fear of such attacks and assaults recurring.
	I shall give one example. Kim, a store manager, was attacked by a prolific shoplifter. After her attack, she described how she had,
	“no end of sickness because of the stress. I have worked for five years and never had a day off, but now I am asking myself whether it is worth carrying on”.
	Our current legal system, however, does not do enough to provide people like Kim with the protection they deserve. Too often, instead—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised this in the previous debate—offenders go virtually unpunished, either receiving a small fine or a suspended sentence.
	In order to remedy this, my amendment creates a specific offence of assaulting someone who works with the public in the course of their employment. At present, doing so is simply one of 19 aggravating factors. Currently, the Code for Crown Prosecutors states:
	“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.
	The Government insist that that helps to ensure that most of these cases are brought to court. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case.
	Instead, in far too many instances, because of the laws currently governing assault in the workplace, the police and the CPS seem to be deciding in advance that it is not worth proceeding with these cases of common assault, which is how they are usually categorised, because assailants could end up with as little as a £50 fine. What is the point in pursuing a case if that is the result? Even then, when the CPS does decide to prosecute, it is very rare, in the reported cases that we have, for the aggravating factor that I described earlier of assault on a public-facing worker even to be mentioned in the proceedings.
	My amendment would increase prosecutions and help to ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of the crime. It would do so by making the assault of a public-facing worker a separate offence, which would consequently elevate the seriousness of the crime in the sentencing guidelines above that of common assault. This in turn would make the range of penalties for offenders higher, thus encouraging a higher number of prosecutions.
	I should now like to deal with the criticisms that were levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in Committee, although I gather that there has been a change of Ministers—I am not sure whether this is good or bad news, whether I have a softer or harder Minister on this occasion, and only time will tell. First, it was claimed that, due to the existing range of offences relating to criminally violent behaviour, my amendment would further complicate the law and make prosecutions more complex. I must say, in making this argument, the Government totally ignore the existing complexity of the laws governing common assault, an offence which has three categories of harm and culpability and—I do not have 11 fingers—11 factors reducing seriousness. In contrast, my amendment would simplify matters, as a separate offence for assaulting public-faced workers would be easier to determine.
	Secondly, in our previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, stated:
	“I do not consider the proposed changes would mean more prosecutions”.
	In making this claim, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor and the Government ignored—I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others who are interested in Scots law will be particularly interested in this—the impact of similar protective measures for emergency
	workers in Scotland, which have led both to a decline in such incidents and to more than 1,000 prosecutions. Scotland has shown the way, not on such a wide range as the offence there deals particularly with emergency workers, and has shown that introducing this kind of provision actually works.
	Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked why such workers should be afforded special protection as opposed to members of the general public. He went on to argue in relation to the special protections rightly given to police officers by the criminal justice system:
	“We do not ask of people in their normal employment that they place themselves in positions of danger in dealing with potentially violent incidents. We do ask that of the police”.—[Official Report, 4/12/2013; cols. 259-260.]
	That is wrong. For a start, public-facing employees are placed in danger. That is the whole point. They are legally obliged to be there. We expect shopkeepers to challenge under-age purchasers of cigarettes and alcohol—an instruction which, when implemented, results in 30% of all violent and abusive incidents faced by retailers. We make the law saying that under-age people should not be given alcohol and tobacco. Shopkeepers have to implement it, and many of them get assaulted when they are doing so. You can imagine the 15 year-old thugs going into those shops. They may be under age as far as the law is concerned, but they can certainly be very violent towards the retailers.
	A further 15% of such incidents occur when shoplifters are challenged—again, when enforcing a law that we have implemented, and a law which the police would enforce if they were there but they are not, so the shopkeeper has to do it. Transport staff are expected to place themselves in harm’s way by challenging all manner of anti-social and illegal behaviour. Noble Lords who travel on London buses, as we do, will know that this happens from time to time.
	In other words, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, public-facing workers, like the police, often have to put themselves in potentially violent situations. As with the police, it is their duty to uphold laws and regulations. This responsibility not only imposes a greater financial burden on small businesses such as bars and clubs—according to the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, they spend more than 11% of their turnover on security staff—but imposes an even greater physical and psychological cost on employees, who deserve greater recognition and greater protection.
	If the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, repeats what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said on the previous occasion and the Government do not accept such a reasonable amendment—and I hope that, unusually for me, I have put it in a reasonable way—to give the workers whom I have described the peace of mind that they deserve, I sincerely hope that this House will put aside any party prejudice or party views and that, as a revising Chamber, we will consider correcting what the Government have unfortunately decided to refuse. I hope that I have persuaded the Ministers, particularly the new Minister, but, if I have not done so, I hope that this House will give public-facing workers the kind of protection they deserve.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I spent 28 years representing people in the retail sector and I support this amendment. In the main, the people we are talking about are women and girls under the age of 18. They are the ones who face up to the criminals who enter the stores and do damage to individuals, who are frightened to death doing their job. As I said, in the main we are talking about young girls and women in the retail sector in this country. We are not talking about big, bruising men who can handle the situation but women and young women who are frightened to death in carrying out their work. I expect the Government to do as the amendment suggests and protect the people who are being damaged by villains and criminals who enter stores up and down the country.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was kind enough to mention me, and perhaps I may add a footnote to what he said about Scotland and the measure that deals with emergency workers. Of course, an assault, in both the law of Scotland and the law of England, is a crime, and in a sense you could say that it was not necessary to pass that measure at all because any court when presented with evidence of an assault would pass an appropriate sentence if the individual was convicted.
	However, the value of the measure, which got a lot of publicity, was its deterrent effect. After all, the last thing that one wants is to have the assault committed. The Government in Scotland were trying to reduce the very unfortunate crescendo of assaults on emergency workers—firemen, ambulance people and so on—and to some extent the measure appears to have had that effect. Therefore, the deterrent effect is as valuable as any sentencing. As I said, in an ideal world, if something was a crime, the individual tempted to do the act described as criminal would refrain from doing it. It is because of the deterrent effect that I think there is a good deal of force behind the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thought that at the previous stage the noble Lord, Lord Condon, had it right when he said he feared that,
	“the real mischief they and we might seek to address is not the absence of suitable offences but the absence of action”.—[
	Official
	 Report
	, 4/12/13; col. 255.]
	I asked questions of my noble friend about sentencing, the aggravating nature of that type of offence and so on, and I am afraid that I have not changed my mind about those two aspects.
	I am interested in the definition of “worker” in the noble Lord’s amendment. One qualifies, as it were—that is not quite the right term but he will know what I mean—only if one is “physically present”. Reading that, I wondered how that works with his requirement for malice in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. When I saw the word “malice”, I thought that he had in mind, for example, someone who—possibly for very personal reasons—does not like people who work in jobcentres but then discovers that his neighbour works in a jobcentre. Is that malice towards all such people for that sort of reason or are we talking about something very personal? Does it mean being in the workplace or in the sort of situation that I have suggested, hanging around until one’s neighbour comes out of the house and having a go at him for that reason?
	I was also interested in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. If I remember rightly—I have not gone back to check—I think that on the previous occasion the noble Lord talked about “evidence from a single source”. That seems to be a matter for the courts. We should not tell the courts how to assess evidence. If he is saying that there is some restriction on the way they are working at the moment, it may be a different matter—but, again, that made me wonder where the noble Lord was going with this.
	On the aggravating nature of the offence, we have to be careful not to devalue the importance of that approach to sentencing. This, of course, is not the only aggravating factor for the courts, but the Sentencing Council does a very important job in identifying appropriate aggravating factors.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock very eloquently made the case in support of this amendment. It is really about supporting victims of assault by a member of the public in the course of their employment and in the course of earning their livelihood. I suppose that the question is whether one feels that the matter should be dealt with by regarding that kind of assault as one of a great many aggravating factors in an assault case, or whether it should be regarded as a separate offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to the impact of the new offence in Scotland in relation to assaults on emergency workers.
	It is worth looking at some of the figures that have emerged. Those from the HSE’s Crime Survey for England and Wales show that there were nearly 650,000 reported incidents of violence at work and that workplace violence comprises some 31% of all reported crimes of violence. The HSE found that the occupations at greatest risk were those that involved working with the public. That is hardly a surprise, but nevertheless it was confirmed by the HSE.
	Reference has been made to the position of shop workers. USDAW, the union that represents them, undertakes members’ surveys, which show that in the past year 4% of retail staff were attacked at work—which is equivalent to some 120,000 assaults—and 34% were threatened with violence. In addition, 17% of those attacked did not report the offence—and we can all speculate as to why that might have been the case.
	People at work—in their employment, in the course of earning their livelihood— are in a different situation from most other people. The reality is that an assault on somebody at work can be quite traumatic. It can lead to a situation where somebody is reluctant or fearful to go back to their place of work and be in exactly the same situation that they were in when they were attacked, facing a constant stream of strangers, any one of whom could become violent. One can also find cases of people assaulted by a member of the public in the course of their employment where the assault leads to them actually losing their job and their livelihood, because they are so traumatised that they are no longer able to return to the same job at the same location and to carry on with that employment. Those are among the victims who feel that sentencing probably does not reflect the effect that that kind of assault can have on their lives.
	As has already been said, many people in the course of their employment are actually put in the way of danger by their work. They are the kind of people who have already been mentioned: public transport staff, fire workers, security staff, emergency service workers and shop workers. They often have to deal with people who are aggressive, drunk or attempting to break the law. Those workers are the kind of people who can be working late at night, sometimes on their own and in areas of anti-social behaviour which most people voluntarily avoid for their own safety. Workers in that situation do not have that particular option.
	Some staff in the course of their employment dealing with the public have an obligation to seek to enforce the law. Those, for example, who serve alcohol are required to obtain proof of age from the purchaser. They are required to refuse to serve someone who is drunk and they are required to refuse a proxy sale of alcohol—although not of tobacco, as we were discussing earlier. Those kinds of actions are all major triggers for assaults on staff, and reference has already been made to the situation in that regard. In the USDAW survey, some 30% of assaults arose from challenging age-restricted sales, and some 15% related to people who appeared to be committing theft.
	Those actions, carried out by people in the course of their employment who are required to seek to enforce the law, place workers at risk. If they are not undertaken—particularly in relation to refusing to serve people with alcohol when they are under age, or refusing a proxy sale of alcohol—staff can be liable for prosecution or for action to be taken against them for failing to carry out their duty to seek to enforce the requirements of the law where it applies.
	There are, therefore, differences in the position of people who are assaulted in the course of their employment. They cannot run away; they cannot move somewhere else; they have to go back to their employment after an assault and be in the same situation in exactly the same circumstances as they were, facing members of the public and probably fearing that the same kind of thing might happen again. In some cases, it can cost them their jobs because the experience has been so traumatic that they feel they cannot carry on. Many are put in danger by the nature of their work or the kind of job they have to do; many are required to enforce the law as part of their work.
	Like my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I hope that we will get a moresympathetic response to this amendment. There is a case for having a separate offence of assault on a person in the course of their employment by a member of the public, and for not regarding it as simply one of a large number of aggravating factors for the offence of assault.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, much has been made of the change of Minister, but let me assure the noble Lord—perhaps this will disappoint him—that we represent the same Government and the same department. Whether my line is softer or harder I will leave him to determine—but it will be is consistent with that of my noble friend.
	When we debated this issue in Committee, the noble Lord drew our attention to the problem of assaults on individuals who work with the public. He quoted extensively from research—research we also heard about tonight—from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers about attacks on retail staff in particular that shows that such assaults are sadly all too common. We have heard further such evidence in the debate today. We all agree that assaults on people who come into contact with the public as part of their work are totally and utterly unacceptable. They are a matter which both Parliament and the Government take very seriously and on which we are all agreed. No one should be expected to face violence in the course of their work, particularly when they are serving the public.
	I think that the noble Lord referred to the Asian community in particular when he talked about the staff of small shops. There has been consistency across the board in our cities: quite often, shops are run by particular members of the community, often 24 hours a day, seven days a week. By definition, that opens them up to greater levels of assault and crime, which do take place; when we look across the country, it is of course the case. Staff of small shops are particularly vulnerable in this respect because they may need to stay open longer hours to make the profit needed to keep their business going, often as a family business with minimal staff. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw also drew our attention to the position of public transport workers—as did the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, today.
	It is paramount that the criminal justice system should treat violence against these essential members of society adequately, but the Government do not agree that a new offence is the right way to address the problems that the noble Lord highlighted. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, is not in his place today, but, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, when we debated this issue in Committee, he said:
	“Apart from the important symbolism of saying, ‘Here is a new offence’, I fear it would not add practically to improving the situation overall”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 256.]
	I agree with him. As my noble friend Lord Taylor explained in Committee, there is already a range of offences that criminalise violent behaviour and these are supported by guidance that ensures that any assault against workers in public-facing roles is regarded as serious and is dealt with appropriately. This view is shared by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police are considered under the code for Crown prosecutors. Under the code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must then consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The section of the code giving guidance on this public interest test states:
	“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.
	If the evidence is there and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.
	Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, be that in the public or the private sector, it is an aggravating factor and should result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. The Sentencing Council has also made clear in its guidance that that includes those who work in shops and in the wider retail business—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
	I do not accept that a new offence would have additional deterrent value. The law already provides for what this amendment is intended to achieve. Fundamentally, we all know that assaulting anyone, regardless of their profession or circumstances, is wrong.
	I listened very carefully, as I often do—always do.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: A Freudian slip there perhaps. Maybe I was honest in my first assessment. Nevertheless, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, when he talked about victims. In my own life serving the public in local government, quite often I came across a victim of crime—we are not talking about someone who serves the public, but any victim of crime. The noble Lord painted a scenario about that person having to return to their place of work. If someone has been assaulted in their own house, on the way to work, catching a train, at a bus stop or a station, there is equally a sense of great trepidation when the person has to return. It is important when we look at these issues that we put them into context. Ask any victim of crime, particularly serious crime, and the trepidation and fear that they feel in overcoming those challenges are intense.
	Of course I acknowledge what the noble Lord is saying. When we face public life where does it stretch? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, contributed with his experience of the judiciary. Often, the judiciary are in the front line when they have to sentence people. There is an issue to be tackled there. Here, we sit in the Lords and many have served in representative office. Politicians put themselves in the front line when they face the public and indeed there have been instances where they have been assaulted in their own offices.
	We argue that the degree of seriousness depends on the particular facts of the case. Why should it be worse, for example, or more traumatic for someone to be assaulted at work rather than on the bus going to work, or for that matter when locking the front door when leaving for work, or as a result of an intrusion into the home? The simple truth is that every case is unique and may have aggravating and mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account. That is where the judiciary comes in. We rely on the judiciary, guided by sentencing guidelines, to do just that.
	Specific issues and questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others on issues vis-à-vis the police. First, assaults against people whose work brings them into contact with the public should receive the same sentence as an assault on a constable. That is already the case. With regard to the offence of an assault on a constable, we accept, as my noble
	friend Lord Taylor said previously, that the police do occupy an important role in society and a slightly different one by virtue of the role that they have to perform. But that does not mean that an assault on someone else, while being a distinct offence, carries a different maximum penalty. Both offences, be it on the police constable or anyone else, carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale currently set at £5,000.
	The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, also raised the issue of young women. Again, I would say, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the Asian community, that there are particular circumstances that have to be looked at. We maintain that the current law provides protection. He mentioned the case of Kim and I listened very carefully. It is a great concern that there are harrowing experiences of victims of assault and noble Lords have shared those with the House today and in Committee. As I have already said, there are lasting consequences from these attacks. It is down to the individual and how they deal with it. It is the role of government, community and society to provide the support and protection they need. It concerns me greatly that individuals are not reporting serious crimes because they believe that nothing will be done. But we believe that having a new offence will make not a difference to that issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed to the experience in Scotland. I take the point on board about the higher number of people being charged. It may well be that offences are currently being prosecuted under the legislation protecting emergency workers as an alternative to common assault. But I will certainly take their comments back, make inquiries with the Scottish Government and write to them in that regard if I may.
	In closing, I assure the House that the Government are committed to improving things for victims of crime. Since 2011, the Ministry of Justice has provided—and continues to provide—more than £50 million in funding per year to diverse victims’ organisations, including a £38 million per year grant-in-aid agreement with Victim Support. My noble friend is not in her place, but I remind noble Lords of the appointment of my noble friend, Lady Newlove, as Victims’ Commissioner. As noble Lords know, she has personal experience that she brings to bear to protect and help others and ensure that we can tackle these issues with people who have tragic experience in this regard. I pay tribute to her work.
	The new victims’ code recently came into force. It explains what victims should expect from the criminal justice system, who to request help from and how and where it should be provided. The code also holds those in the criminal justice system to account, makes victims their priority and gives victims a clearer means of redress if they are not given the support they deserve. We all believe that victims need to know that the criminal justice system will work as hard as possible to deliver justice for them and help them recover and move on with their lives. As I said, ask any victim of crime; that is exactly what they want to do. Indeed,
	often we hear that they do not want to be known as victims of crime: they want to know that they are survivors of crime because they have moved forward with their lives.
	The noble Lord is a man whose contributions I am sometimes amused by and often entertained by. They often add to the spirit, detail and diversity of debate and discussion. Moreover, they add to the quality of debate we have in this House. I hope that, with the reassurances and explanations I have given, he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rosser: The Minister sought to argue when I said that staff working with the public and facing assault were to some extent different from others. He sought to say that that was not the case. Does that mean that it is the Government’s view that in offences committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public that should not even be an aggravating factor?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The noble Lord is being somewhat disingenuous with the comments I made. The parallel I was drawing was with victims of crime. Of course, there are aggravating circumstances and the Government take them into account. But I was trying to highlight to the noble Lord and to the House that if you ask any victim of crime they will tell you that in the circumstances that he was painting about somebody having to go back to their place of work that the same is true of someone who has been assaulted in the street or at the bus stop. It is our belief that people should be treated according to the law in a fair and just system. I believe that the current law does just that.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for his eloquent and comprehensive reply. It was equally as good as that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the previous occasion—and very consistent, as the Minister said it would be. I am not questioning his sympathy or the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in relation to this, but what I am questioning is his unwillingness to act. I suspect that it is because of the bureaucrats rather than because of Ministers. They do not want the bother of all the change that would be necessary.
	Perhaps I may deal with the point raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, which the Minister mentioned. The police are treated separately when dealing with criminals. In education we use the phrase “in loco parentis”, but in this case teachers are acting “in loco custodia”; that is, in place of the police in that they are acting on behalf of the police, and so they should be treated in the same way. I would also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the question of who is the worker is absolutely clear. The only point in relation to the single source is that the single source is needed to describe a worker. I do not think that we need corrobation in terms of who is a worker in these circumstances.
	I have been really encouraged by the support that I have received from the Labour Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Rosser, who has tremendous experience in
	the transport field, knows and understands the kind of problems that transport workers face. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity has huge experience as General Secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and he knows exactly what people face. I welcome particularly the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who pointed out that the introduction in Scotland of a special offence in relation to workers in the emergency services has increased the prosecution rate and resulted in a decrease in such offences. Those are powerful arguments from people who have worked in the field and from a former judge in Scotland. I hope that if I have not convinced the Minister, I might have convinced other Members of this House and Members opposite.
	The key and most important thing of all is that while of course the general public face dangers—that is incontrovertible—they do not have to return day in and day out to the scene of the crime. These workers do. They have to go back to where the offence took place. That is why they are a special case and it is why we as a House should give them special treatment. It is also why I am moving this amendment today.

Division on Amendment 87
	Contents 137; Not-Contents 195.
	Amendment 87 disagreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.43 pm.

Lord Bates: My Lords, it might be helpful if I remind noble Lords that there are a number of speakers in this debate and the time limit is three minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, has 10 minutes, my noble friend Lady Warsi has 12 minutes to wind up and remaining speakers have three minutes. I remind noble Lords that when the clock shows “3”, time is up.

Middle East Peace Settlement
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Lord Soley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role the European Union is currently playing in efforts to reach a wider Middle East peace settlement.

Lord Soley: My Lords, two themes underpin this very short debate, and I shall try to keep my remarks very brief, to assist others. First, and very obviously, the Middle East poses a major threat to world peace. There are appalling conflicts there at the moment and the humanitarian disasters are great. The second theme relates to the activities of the European Union, which have been growing in significance and are extremely important. One of the things that I want to suggest today is that we must use the influence of the European Union to get involved in some of the other disputes that trouble us in that region. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has played a particularly important role, and this House owes her a debt of gratitude as she has certainly put us on the map in that way.
	In theory, the European Union does not have a foreign policy or a defence policy. What has been happening, particularly in the Iranian talks, is that you have the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany and Iran, but with the European Union playing a very significant role in those negotiations, precisely because it has enormous economic power. With economic power in a unified market, as some of us have been saying for some time, you inevitably get drawn into foreign affairs and security policy because you cannot run a single economic market without having a profound influence on the world. It is, by far, the most powerful economic bloc in the world and is therefore going to have a wider influence. That is important. With such economic power, I would argue, states are born. They may be very diverse and loosely knit ones, and it is hard to call the European Union a state, but it certainly has some aspects of a state.
	The European Union’s role in the agreement emphasises that economic power, because it was as a result of those talks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, chairing them, that she was also able to deliver relief on some of the sanctions imposed on Iran, such as some of the nuclear ones, some of the financial ones affecting the insurance of the oil industry and so on. You could see economic power translating into political power by saying to Iran: “If you co-operate, we will move, as will the other states representing the United Nations Security Council, and Germany as an individual state with great interest in the area”.
	Those facts are true also for the Palestine-Israel dispute. I could spend some time—I will not because of the shortage of time—listing what the European Union has already done for both parties in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Both parties have benefited from European Union involvement, which has been progressively growing. People will have noted that, if
	there is a final status agreement, the European Union has already promised a very significant economic and political package to try to underpin that agreement. Again, this is enormously important. It offers an attractive option for both parties to find a settlement and underpins the efforts by the United States to create that agreement. We ought to recognise that this is powerful.
	Events outside the Middle East, which I would like to talk about at some other stage, also indicate this growing influence. When French troops went into the Central African Republic, fairly soon afterwards—indeed only the other week—the European Union asked its members to provide additional troops in that area. The reach of the European Union is becoming wider: it is not just the Middle East, although that, to my mind, is by far the most important area and the one where we can do the most at the moment.
	It is my contention that we have gone so far in using the European Union as a tool of our foreign and security policy that we ought to think through additional ways in which we can use our influence within the European Union. We are a very influential player in it and by evolving a greater coherence on foreign and security policy we can have great influence. I stress that this does not mean that we have to rush to create a European army or a European Foreign Secretary, and I am sure the Minister will not be rushing to the Dispatch Box to say that that is what we want to do. However, there is a delicate but incredibly important balance where we can actually increase our influence in that way and develop it in a way that really benefits the whole region and enables us to act as though we had a foreign policy, but without actually creating the problems that would exist within the European Union if we tried to set that up formally. It is the informal but very co-operative approach that the European Union takes with its members that enables that to work.
	I ought perhaps to put this into context as I was in the House of Commons when there were terrible problems in the former Yugoslavia. There was a growing desire to intervene in that situation as ethnic cleansing reached horrendous proportions. Eventually we did intervene, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was done by NATO but, significantly, nearly all the military assets were those of the United States. The vast majority of the air power assets—more than 85%—came from the US Air Force and US Navy. That brought home to Europe the fact that if it could not deal with ethnic cleansing in its own continent, what other threats could it not face down around the edges of its continent? That was a very important lesson and one that is continually being learnt.
	I am a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which recently produced a very useful paper pointing out that it was incredibly frustrating for people in the defence industry and the defence world generally to see that the European Union did not have such a policy because it was increasingly marginalising the European Union forces as the world power balance shifts and new powers emerge—Brazil in aircraft production, and China, India and Russia will all come back into play in due course. Those factors are incredibly important and ought to be looked at in due course.
	I want to focus on the Middle East and where it goes forward from here. The role of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the Iranian talks is very important. I note that she is now being invited by Iran to visit the country. That invitation was issued the day before yesterday, I think. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether she has accepted that invitation. I think that there is a strong case for doing so not least because the discussions should widen as my Motion indicates, towards talking about resolving the dispute in Syria as well as the dispute with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue. There is a very real chance of the European Union playing a crucial role here. If the Iranians recognise, as I know they do, that the European Union is a different entity from the United States and from the individual great powers which it has dealt with so far, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, does visit, the EU might find it a very useful way of seeing what role it can play.
	It is difficult for the United States and others to accept that Iran should be present at the table when the discussions take place on Syria. I have doubted for some time whether those discussions will take place, as the Minister will know from other questions that I have asked her in the past. If we can get that conference going then there is a case that Iran should be there, subject to certain limitations. Perhaps the European Union can be helpful in that regard. Even if it does not work out that Iran is present then the European Union can act as a conduit between that conference and the Iranians. If the Iranians do not co-operate on a settlement within Syria, the problem will continue to trouble us, and the horrendous sights of what is happening in Syria that we see on our televisions will continue unhindered.
	I said that I would keep my remarks as brief as possible but I have one final, important point, particularly for the Eurosceptics. The European Union magnifies our influence; it does not diminish it.

Lord Carrington of Fulham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on this extremely timely debate, and on his work in bringing Arabs and Jews to a better understanding via his Arab-Jewish Forum. This debate comes at a time of mourning for the life of General Sharon. His life in some ways is an exemplar of the problems that have bedevilled attempts to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He moved from freedom fighter—terrorist to some—to being a successful general, to being accused of war crimes and to becoming a hard-line Prime Minister who removed the settlements from Gaza. His was a life that many, including me, would like to interpret as a progression from a belief that the conflict could be solved through violence to a realisation that the only solution is through compromise, negotiation and magnanimity.
	Finding that compromise and magnanimity is the problem. As some of your Lordships may know, I have spent much of my working life outside politics doing business in the Middle East, often with devout Muslims. I am also a strong supporter of Israel and its right to exist, and to do more than exist: to prosper as a beacon of enterprise and democracy in an otherwise very challenged part of the world.
	In this dispute, sadly, facts and truth often do not matter and perception is everything. Among many devout Muslims who believe in the teachings of the Prophet, which are peaceable and loving, the perception is that American and—perhaps to a lesser extent—EU support for Israel is absolute, and as too often in the region “my enemy’s friend is my enemy”, it is hard for either to act as an honest broker in any negotiations.
	It would be wrong to say, as some Arab commentators claim, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all the problems in the Middle East. However, the conflict is certainly not divorced from the Sunni-Shia war and the persecution of Christians in some Arab countries. Without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, it is impossible to see how the other conflicts in the region can start to be resolved. I would like to think that the European Union role, or the American role, in the negotiations could be seen to be benign and impartial—but, sadly, that is impossible.
	The Middle East desperately needs a fair solution to this problem in the short window in which a two-state solution is still possible, but there can be no honest brokers and possibly not even guarantors. The two sides have to come to a realisation that neither one has any alternative to a fair two-state solution. Once that is agreed, we will have the best chance that the men of violence will lose support and that peace will become a reality. The role of the EU has to be to support and put pressure on the Americans, and to make it clear to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that only a two-state solution is possible and that no other solution will be acceptable if money, technology and arms are still to flow to the region.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords, I will first echo my noble friend Lord Carrington’s comments about Ariel Sharon; I shall not dwell on the matter more than that. I will address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and perhaps flesh out some of the things he did not have time to go into in his speech.
	The EU Foreign Affairs Council announced in December that in the event of a peace agreement it would offer both Israel and a future Palestinian state a special privileged partnership with the EU, including increased access to European markets, closer cultural and scientific links, facilitation of trade and investments, promotion of business to business relations and enhanced political dialogue and security co-operation.
	The council also said that the EU would,
	“contribute substantially to post-conflict arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a peace agreement. The Council will work on concrete proposals, including by building on previous work undertaken on EU contributions to Palestinian state-building, regional issues, refugees, security and Jerusalem.
	We constantly hear a lot about what Israel must do to reach a peace settlement, such as stopping the expansion of settlements—the list of actions that Israel should take goes on. I have no problem with some of these demands, but demands should also be made of the Palestinians as, without give and take on both sides, no progress will be made.
	The UK Government and the EU frequently endorse a key Palestinian demand with regard to the 1967 lines being the basis for a territorial agreement. They have
	not acknowledged one of Israel’s key concerns: namely, that an agreement must be along the lines of two states for two peoples, as my noble friend Lord Carrington outlined. It is important to set realistic expectations for both sides regarding the end game, and in particular to reassure the Israelis that a peace agreement will secure, not threaten, Israel as the only state in the world with a Jewish majority.
	What does Israel see? The glorification of terrorism and violence in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas media, along with a denial of the Jewish connection to the land and any right to statehood. That sends out a very negative message to Israel about Palestinian intentions regarding a negotiated two-state solution, which we all want. Israel’s public support for talks is high, but faith in the Palestinian partner is, sadly—whether correctly or incorrectly—very low. This is a considerable source of concern, particularly when there seem to be continued Palestinian attacks on Israelis.
	Given the role of the EU as a financial supporter of the PA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, rightly drew the attention of the House, could it not do more to pressurise the Palestinian Authority to address that problem? Will Ministers consider strengthening public statements regarding the glorification of violence against Israel in the Palestinian media? That is the way forward to the two-state solution that we all want.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate. We meet at a time of terrible difficulties in the Middle East. The Geneva II Middle East peace conference is due to start on 22 January. It is to be hoped that it will lead to disarmament, ceasefires, reintegration et cetera.
	However, I want to talk about displaced people. The United Nations says that there are about 6 million people now displaced inside Syria, with more than 2.3 million registered refugees living across the region in countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, all of which are struggling to cope with the number of refugees. About 20% of the refugees live in camps; the rest are in other communities, often living in profoundly difficult circumstances.
	Last autumn, I visited a refugee camp for Syrian refugees, Camp Zatary in Jordan. It has a population of between 125,000 and 145,000. It is difficult to know how many there are because people come and go with such fluidity. Some people think that those camps are used by the Syrian fighters for R&R. As refugee camps go, Camp Zatary is a model location. It has a paved street, three hospitals and many shops—you can buy a washing machine or a television—and electricity is available, but it is still a refugee camp, and only Syrians can go there.
	However, there are many refugees from Syria who are not Syrian. I think in particular of the Palestinians, about whose plight is there has been so much international comment, effort and so on, but which still remains unresolved. It is important, as the parties move to attempt to change the situation in Syria and other parts of the Middle East, that we do not forget the plight of those who have been living for decades in various Middle Eastern countries as displaced people without refugee status and with no proper access to life.
	When I was in Jordan, I visited a Gaza camp at Jaresh, a long drive from Amman, perched on the side of a barren mountain in the desert. It has been there since the people fled from Gaza in 1967. They are not recognised as refugees; they are displaced people. The only body that helps them is UNRWA, established in 1967 to care for them. It has very limited resources. In 40-plus years, it has not been able to achieve as much as the UNHCR has achieved at Zatary. The people cannot go back to Gaza: they have no identity, no right to work in the public service or, really, in the private sector, no homeland, no ability to travel and no experience of the world.
	There are more than 5,000 children in the school in that camp, educated to a limited degree. They cannot go to university because, apart from a very small number of them, they have to pay international fees. The teachers try to teach them. When we met the children, they told us what they want. We met the girls, and I should like to tell noble Lords what these beautiful, bright, articulate young women, living out their lives on a bleak mountainside, told us. They said that they want to be recognised as human beings with rights, not as people with no identity who are helpless. They want the right to own property. They want to be able to work. They want an education but they said, “If we can’t get an education, we’ll study”. Above all, they want to be happy. They said that everything is about grieving. Even when there might be some happiness, there is still sadness for all that is lost. They want to make a contribution.
	The European Union and those who support it could make a difference to those young lives. They could encourage funding to allow those bright young people to take their place in the world. They could conduct an audit of conditions in those forgotten camps. Above all, the United Nations could be facilitated and encouraged by the European Union and its international partners to recognise the responsibilities it has to those forgotten people. UNRWA is not enough. Something needs to be done to improve conditions and bring hope to those displaced Palestinians.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate, because reaching a wider Middle East peace settlement is crucial to the entire world.
	I want to focus my short remarks on what Christians refer to as the Holy Land and the welfare of its peoples, in which I have a long-standing personal interest. I have visited regularly for 25 years. At this time last year, I was in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, visiting projects run by Christian Aid with two other bishops. I shall be there again very shortly with a pilgrimage from the diocese of Worcester.
	I should declare my position. I would describe myself as a pro-Palestinian Zionist, wholeheartedly committed to the right of Israel to exist securely, and equally committed to the right of the Palestinian people to a viable state in which they can flourish. Reaching that is crucial to a wider Middle East peace settlement.
	The EU can bring great influence to bear, as has already been pointed out. One example of the influence that it can bring to bear is in the new EU guidelines on
	Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I believe that they are a good development, which is why I have asked Written Questions about their implementation. I do not believe that they change the relationship of the EU to the State of Israel, as has been claimed by some; they simply draw practical, if uncomfortable, conclusions from long-standing EU policy. With this in mind, I was pleased to read of the agreement reached between the Israeli Justice Minister and the EU High Representative, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on the EU Horizon 2020 programme.
	When I was in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this time last year, at the same time as the Israeli election, I was saddened by the way in which a two-state solution seemed to be more remote than ever, with the prospect of building on Zone E1, close to Jerusalem, which would render a contiguous Palestinian state well nigh impossible. I am delighted that John Kerry, the American Secretary of State, has made such good progress in the past few months, although sad that he left the Middle East recently without an official framework agreement between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. I also regret what has been reported since about substantial building plan announcements for settlements on the West Bank and in east Jerusalem.
	Mr Kerry is reported as saying that what matters is a settlement, not lots of settlements. However, the expansion of settlements will not help progress towards a lasting and just peace settlement. That was acknowledged by the Israeli Finance Minister, who was reported this week as remarking that the announcement “complicated” the peace settlement and was a “mistake”.
	I hope that, as well as continuing to do all that it is, the EU will expand its efforts to be of help in securing a lasting peace settlement. Although the EU has not been involved to date in the settlement negotiations, I hope that more will be made of the promise, which has already been mentioned this evening, of financial and other incentives in the event of the reaching of a peace settlement.
	In short, as a pro-Palestinian Zionist, I hope that the EU will do everything in its power to enable a just and lasting settlement for the Middle East in general.

Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, Europe is confronted by three worsening, interpenetrating crises in the Middle East, demanding a new measure of watchfulness, partly because of the somewhat undulating nature of President Obama’s foreign policy of withdrawal and return. The descent of established, although perhaps malgoverned, countries into dysfunctional and even failed states is epitomised by the Syrian tragedy, but Libya, Yemen and now notably Egypt also give cause for great concern.
	As regards Syria, the agreement brokered between Putin and Obama might have spared deaths from poisonous gas, but it has left Assad free to continue his mode of warfare unhindered by foreign military intervention or the supply of arms to his opponents. In Egypt where, to some of us, the two brands of authoritarian rule may be anathema, there is little doubt that the military junta gives greater chances for
	advocating transition to fairer government than the Brotherhood, a fanatical movement with unpredictable aims.
	That even the self-assured Turkish regime is now experiencing some turmoil shows how brittle the structure of states in the Muslim world has now become. The violent sectarian Shia and Sunni strife, which has gripped Iraq and threatens Lebanon, is one in which the West must not be seen to interfere. Yet it must be firmly watched for it penetrates the third—and in its way the most immediately dangerous—phenomenon: the coalescing of disparate fanatical jihadist movements into solid fronts. Under al-Qaeda’s inspiration, fanatical militants operate not only in the heart of the Middle East but in Africa and, indeed, in the very heart of the Atlantic world. It is there where Europe has no choice but to fight implacably, systematically and purposefully, for the lives of its citizens are at stake. Moreover, the indoctrination of non-Muslim young people gives cause for concern.
	There is one issue where Europe could play an important and, if I may say so, healing part: the settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Having just returned from Israel I believe that the initiative of the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, holds greater promise than many previous ones because he has clearly hit it off with both Palestinians and Israelis. He has had more than 20 meetings with President Abbas and he has a very good relationship with the hawkish Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman.
	The lacerated psyche of both nations needs considerable tact and respect on Europe’s part. Pinpricks from Brussels, such as trade boycotts and academic and other cultural ostracism, inflame only one party. When Israel released a third batch of 26 imprisoned Palestinians, it included a man who killed a woman in the ninth month of pregnancy, three further children and an Israeli soldier trying to prevent this crime; he was hailed by President Abbas as a national hero and a model for Palestinian youth. No doubt, Palestinians could point to deeply offensive incidents allegedly committed by Israelis and, of course, there is the tremendous problem of the settlements.
	Let me pause and consider the fact that the total area of settlements in Palestinian land is less than 2%. From talking to various people, I believe that, in a final settlement, a great deal could be done by land swaps and ingenious ways of dealing with this terribly vexed problem.
	In conclusion, tact and compassionate understanding for the two sides are very important and where Europe can really do a great deal, and I hope that this House will continue to have important meetings discussing the progress of this issue.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, I draw your attention to my entry in the register of interests, which includes board membership of the Jerusalem Foundation, where I had the honour to serve for a short time with my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld.
	Despite having only a few minutes allocated to me, it would seem appropriate to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Carrington and pass condolences to
	both the State of Israel and the family of the late Ariel Sharon. There is a lot we can learn from his life which, while controversial, nevertheless included taking some enormous steps to promote peace in the region, such as agreeing the road map and the withdrawal from Gaza, despite facing enormous pressures internally and externally. I hope that his passionate and determined pursuit of peace towards the end of his life will encourage others to follow his example.
	This debate refers to a wider Middle East peace settlement and there is often a tendency in such debates to focus just on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is not necessarily the main cause of regional instability. However, in my opinion, economic prosperity for all the parties in that region is one of the keys for peace. This debate is focusing on the efforts made by the EU, and quite rightly, as since 1994 the EU has provided more than €5.6 billion in assistance to the Palestinian people. The United Kingdom has been a very large contributor to this sum. Between 2008 and 2012 it was the third largest contributor of direct financial support after Holland and Sweden, with the United Kingdom’s contribution being about 10% of member states’ specific contributions.
	Some of this direct funding has gone to support the rehabilitation of the private sector in Gaza, which must be very welcome. However, the recent European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No. 14, which was published in 2013, draws attention to some very worrying observations, such that a “considerable number”, in its words, of civil servants in Gaza were being paid without going to work or providing any public service. Furthermore, it is now clear that a significant proportion of the Palestinian Authority’s budget, in part financed by the EU Pegase programme, is used to pay a salary to Palestinian prisoners in Israel, many of whom have been convicted of terrorist activities. This now runs at a rate of nearly £3 million per month and, perversely, the longer the sentence, the greater the salary. While Israel has commendably started to release prisoners, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said, the president of the Palestinian Authority has publicly called such convicted terrorists “heroes”. This does not bode well for changing the mood in the region towards peace. The EU would do well to heed the warnings by listening to the concerns in its own auditors’ report and further reflect on whether it should allow its—and our financial—support for Palestine to be used, in effect, for prisoner salaries.
	The EU could do much more to promote peace in this area. Specifically, the funds would be much better used in following the example of the Portland Trust, based here in the UK, and using our resources further to promote Palestinian economic growth, which did in fact achieve an impressive 4.25% in 2013. It is by promoting the prosperity of the region that the EU will enhance the peace process.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Soley and will raise only a few headlines. First, on the context, there is turmoil throughout the Middle East and north Africa region, much of it interconnected. No one can now plausibly blame Israel for that turmoil, with Israel
	itself being an oasis of stability. Nevertheless the current Israeli Government, with their settlement policy, are surely placing obstacles in the path of a two-state solution, just as the Palestinians raise their own obstacles to peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, emphasised.
	Secondly, the EU’s interests and those of its member states are directly involved throughout the region, not just because of refugees and terrorism. We have a clear interest in seeking to stabilise the region on democratic lines.
	Thirdly, I recall the US jibe against Europe: “We do the cooking; you, the Europeans, do the washing-up”. There is surely an element of truth in this. It is Secretary Kerry who has taken the lead, both on the Middle East peace process and over Syria. Yet it is fair to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is playing a key role on behalf of the European Union in the rapprochement with Iran, and not just because of the EU sanctions. Is the main strategic political role always to be led by the US and does the EU mainly have a secondary role in institution-building and humanitarian aid? Even if this is inevitable there is surely a key, if subordinate, political role for the EU, not only over Iran but over the quartet and the Syria problem. We should also not decry the washing-up or soft power role. For example, the EU and its member states have spent more than €1 billion in funding Syrian refugees. The EU has also offered attractive carrots to the Palestinians.
	Finally, perhaps the Middle East is a test case for the new European External Action Service after its apparent success in Kosovo. By using all its available instruments, the EU has a serious role. There has been real progress on the immediate humanitarian side. In the longer term, there is much EU experience in the building of viable civil society institutions, the rule of law and human rights. This is particularly seen now in Tunisia, the cradle of the Arab awakening.
	Back to Palestine: the EU is the largest provider of development aid to the Palestinian territories yet there is surely insufficient conditionality for all the money which is given. Last December, the European Court of Auditors concluded that EU assistance to Palestine has been reasonably effective but it highlighted many areas of concern. I have two final questions. Will the Government press for these to be addressed and, generally, will they seek to make the EU’s political weight in the region more commensurate with our financial contribution?

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I add my voice to the praise and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving us the opportunity today to debate his Question for Short Debate on what role the European Union is playing in the wider Middle East peace settlement. I suggest to the noble Lord that the European Union herself is in fact a centre of peace and stability in a turbulent Middle East and north Africa neighbourhood, and that the European Union can look back with pride on a tremendous historic sweep of achievements. She is today the largest donor to Palestine but, at the same time, has been an absolute determinant in ensuring the best possible two- state solution terms.
	The European Union runs a constant and well managed European observation set of missions to some of the more difficult countries in the region: Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt, for example. From the European Parliament’s Iraq permanent standing committee, one member of our earlier grouping is now the United Nations representative to Iraq. A second member of the committee is the EAS representative. In Iran, high activity has been taking place recently but in fact that has been going on for very nearly 15 years now. In Egypt, the European Union has a massive influence. It is perhaps the only constant influence in trying to diminish the horrific female genital mutilation. That rose up to 90% according to the EU ambassadors, including that of the UK, and the US ambassador under the unlamented President Morsi.
	Who better to promote women’s rights throughout the region, ranging from Morocco right up to Afghanistan, and who has continued to promote them? The European Union has. I suggest that the very basic structure of the European Union—its strength—is enabling some of the southern nations which are member states to cope with these enormous influxes of refugees.
	Of course, it should be no surprise to us that the European Union is so powerful in the region. From the beginning, the aim of the EU was to create a peaceful wider neighbourhood. That is well stated in the first preferential agreement with the Maghreb nations in 1969, followed by the global Mediterranean policy of 1972, with bilateral agreements in the region, and leading on to the third agreement for Mediterranean countries and the famous Barcelona process of 1995. The purpose of the Barcelona process is built on the earlier declaration through,
	“a comprehensive partnership between the European Union (EU) and twelve countries of the Southern Mediterranean”,
	to create,
	“a common area of peace, stability and prosperity through the reinforcement of political dialogue, security, and economic, financial, social and cultural cooperation”.
	The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly of 2004 adds the democratic dimension, with 280 members embracing more than 40 nations.
	The enlargement, of course, of the European Union, has brought us ever closer to Russia, one of the modern main players, and also, from the beginning, to Turkey. I suggest therefore that the impact on the Middle East of the European Union is enormous, but the impact on member states is also large, no longer fighting each other for funding, power and territory in the Middle East, but working together to forge a lasting peace. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do more in the European Union and to foster the culture of the European Union being the centre of peace.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on securing this debate. I make no apology for confining my remarks to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The length of time that this has all taken has been one of the main factors in destabilising the Middle East. However, when the final whistle is blown on the talks
	taking place at the moment, the latest attempt to broker peace, I am not optimistic that we shall have very much to celebrate, and I have not met many people who are. At that point, I contend that the European Union, I hope supported by the United Kingdom, will suspend the EU Israel Association Agreement, depending as it does on Israel respecting the human rights of Palestinians.
	John Kerry himself, as reported in Haaretz this week, has warned of moves to delegitimise Israel. He talked of a “boycott campaign on steroids” should talks fail, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. This boycott campaign is already happening. Settlement goods are being banned from some supermarket chains. Soda Stream, Ahava cosmetics, G4S and Veolia have all been suffering because of association with Israel. The largest water company in the Netherlands has stopped its collaboration with the Israeli water company Mekorot, Romania has banned its workers going to Israel from working in the settlements, and we know that universities here and in South Africa are increasingly calling for academic boycotts. Do we really want that? I certainly do not. Israel will become isolated from the international community and that would be a tragedy.
	I want briefly to address an issue which has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Anderson. That is the question of the amount of aid that we pour into the Occupied Territories to support the administration and the police and the general civil service there. The ambassador here has often said that his people want to be free of aid and the occupation in order to run their own economy, the World Bank has pointed out recently that Palestinians could do just that if they were free of Israel’s iron grip on their resources, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, there has to be an investigation into corruption among the Palestinian administration. There is no question of that. Our aid money must be spent wisely.
	Finally, if talks fail, we must insist that if Israel wants to go on occupying Palestinian land, it should pay for that occupation itself and not rely on the international community, especially the European Union, to foot the bill. We cannot let this injustice continue for another four decades.

Lord Mendelsohn: My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on securing this debate, and associate myself with the very positive comments he made about the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Carrington, in relation to the passing of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
	Like many others, I am very encouraged by the discreet and effective initiative led by Secretary of State Kerry and the progress that has been made towards final status. That has clearly changed the dynamic and created both the political space and the political will for progress to be made. I think that there is a role for Europe in not just supporting this progress but starting to work on looking at how to underpin it.
	If this current attempt to reach agreement is to work, three external conditions need to hold. First, regional relationships need to be encouraged that provide confidence to the Palestinians and that support Israel’s security. That means work to deepen ties between Israel and its neighbours. Secondly, the region will need to be ready to open trading relationships with the Palestinian economy and to support development and a shift away from aid dependency. Thirdly, during the peace talks, the parties need to be left to find a solution themselves, with the international community helping to limit distractions and being prepared to support the longer-term relationship necessary between both parties and their neighbours.
	In support of the latter point, there are clearly certain things that Europe should not do. Most importantly, it should not undermine the current talks by adopting positions that alter the balance of advantage during negotiations. On the positive side, there is an obvious role for the EU and its member states. In this regard, the comments made by the Foreign Secretary last week—regarding the EU’s package of security, political and economic support that would be ready to support a final status agreement—are very welcome indeed.
	Any agreement will not make peace overnight. The hard job of establishing peace will take a generation and strong engagement. It is a long commitment to hard and difficult work, and it is what we in Europe can do better than others.

Lord Bew: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate. In his fine book, surveying the EU’s role in the Middle East since the Six-Day War, Professor Rory Miller of King’s College London argued that here was the classic example of Willy Brandt’s famous dictum about the EU—that it was an “economic giant” but a “political dwarf”. That book was published in 2011. It might be argued that we are now at a different moment, thanks to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—and this debate has been inspired by the sense that we are to a degree at a different moment. But I will add just a small word of caution.
	The United States, whoever the President might be, still remains the key player, rather than the EU, in the Middle East. It is quite clear that, for Iran, the key development is the long-term, back-channel discussions with the United States. I would also ask a question of the EU’s current role in another significant aspect of what is going on in the Middle East: namely, the changing relationship between Israel and the Arab Gulf countries. Again, it is not clear precisely what the EU’s role is.
	In saying that, I am not endorsing the dismissive attitude of the Israeli elite towards the EU over quite a period of time, which I think has been a mistake. However, I am saying that the EU has never found a consensus on using its economic power to gain political concessions from Israel, and so far its strategy has not worked. I would argue that, instead, the EU should focus on what it does well—state-building and creating an environment in which Israelis and Palestinians feel comfortable in engaging with each other in areas of
	mutual benefit, such as water and energy. The EU currently funds the Palestine Academy for Science and Technology, and could do even more to help the high-tech companies and thousands of technology graduates in the Palestinian territories.
	Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I was glad to see the compromise reached by the EU and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, with Tzipi Livni, on the subject of the Horizon 2020 programme, which will enhance Israel’s scientific co-operation with Europe. I would like to stress not only that this is to the benefit of Israel, but that it is not in the EU’s interests to drive Israel towards China and India. We have important interests of our own in ensuring the utmost co-operation with Israel’s scientific community.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Soley. It is obviously true that the EU’s efforts have been a significant element in the involvement that has been conducted jointly with others, not least the quartet, and with the United States—whose role, as we have just heard, is still vital. Most importantly, all those groups are committed to a two-state solution, as are we. There has been a massive, unsung effort in development and co-operation provided by the EU over many years—in particular in the programmes of the past five years, many of which were directed at young people, with many important initiatives in the universities. I have emphasised that it is essential to engage the next generation positively, and the EU has tried to do so. It is this generation that, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said a few moments ago, will have the work to do.
	The EU’s work on the economy of Palestine, with direct financial support, and efforts to improve the role of law, trade and water infrastructure, represents what can be done only at scale—hence the importance of the EU’s role. The disaster programme is of huge importance, and I strongly endorse and was very pleased to hear mentioned the funds referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and his endorsement of Sir Ronnie Cohen’s work with the Portland Trust. Of course, much of the work has not succeeded.
	I have set myself, in these few moments, a very simple question—the same question, essentially, that was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Jay, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Giddens, last Friday. The EU’s contribution to peace is fundamental, is it not? That was said again today by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. The House has rightly spoken with pride of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in respect of Iran, and all the wider implications for the region. Could she have had the same impact if she had spoken simply for the United Kingdom? It is inconceivable.
	The EU is a huge political block, comprising major world players acting as one. It is a huge economic entity of 500 million people, where the economic prospects for a peaceful Middle East may well be realised in the arrangements that will subsequently be made. The EU has a responsibility to help, but it also has a responsibility to criticise—to criticise illegal settlements, and also to criticise rocket attacks. Those are all parts of our political responsibility. The
	Cathy Ashton story is a story about the huge leverage for good created by the European Union. Her success is testimony to its success, and I believe that it is likely to be of deep significance when we reach 22 January.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving us the opportunity for what has been a well attended and wide-ranging debate. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, it is impossible to overstate the challenges and the gravity of the threats in the region if current openings and opportunities in Iran, the Middle East peace process and Syria are not brought to fruition. The UK is working closely with international partners to drive forward progress.
	The question today is specifically about the European Union’s contribution to these developments, and I shall now focus on that issue. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, about the fact that the EU’s leverage and stability allow it to play the positive role that it does in international disputes.
	I shall start with Iran. As the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday, the first stage deal reached between the E3+3 and Iran in Geneva on 24 November will come into force on 20 January. This is the first time an agreement has been reached with Iran that halts all elements of Iran’s nuclear programme and, in some cases, rolls it back. UK negotiators worked tirelessly with their E3+3 counterparts and the European External Action Service to achieve this breakthrough. EU sanctions, agreed by all member states, were a significant factor in the success of our policy of pressure, coupled with a readiness to negotiate. I, like other noble Lords, pay tribute to the tremendous work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. Once the six-month period for implementing the Geneva agreement begins, the E3+3 and Iran will enter into intensive negotiations on a comprehensive agreement. We will continue to work closely with the EU and the E3+3 towards a comprehensive solution that addresses all our proliferation concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about the role that Iran could play in relation to Syria. The Foreign Secretary discussed the need for peace in Syria with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in New York last September. He made it clear that Iran could play a constructive role in Syria, including by supporting the Geneva I communiqué. Unfortunately, at this stage that has not been endorsed, but we continue to ask questions, as did the Prime Minister in a letter to Dr Rouhani, about the positive role that Iran could play in relation to a peaceful resolution of the Syria crisis.
	The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke of concerns about extremism in Syria. It is not a choice between a tyrant and terrorists in Syria. We must stand with the majority of Syrians, who want peace and freedom, and ultimately require political solutions to what is now an intense humanitarian challenge. That is why we support the attendance at Geneva of the opposition regime too.
	The issue of the Middle East peace process was raised by a number of noble Lords. We welcome signs of growing momentum in the Middle East peace process and the continued commitment of Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement. The EU is a leading trading partner for Israel and the Palestinians and can play a vital role in encouraging progress in the talks. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said—the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred to this too—on 16 December the EU Foreign Affairs Council agreed conclusions setting out an unprecedented package of European political, economic and security support to both parties in the context of a final status agreement. We are working with the European External Action Service to develop a firm offer in the coming months.
	My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke about the EU’s financial contribution. The EU is the leading multilateral donor to the Palestinian Authority and provided $2.2 billion of support to the Occupied Territories between 2007 and 2013. This assistance in helping strengthen state institutions, law and order and the provision of essential services in the West Bank and Gaza is essential. In other words, it is helping the Palestinian Authority to build the foundations for a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned. I assure my noble friend Lord Leigh that the UK and EU are working to build the institutions of the Palestinian Authority but accountability and transparency are important goals in strengthening governance.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester spoke about settlements. We have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements to expand settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including east Jerusalem. As well as being illegal under international law, settlements undermine the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those working for a sustainable peace. We are advising British businesses to bear in mind the British Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investment and activities in the region. Like my noble friend Lady Tonge, the British Government opposed calls to boycott Israel, but we do not recognise the Occupied Territories, including the settlements, as being a part of Israel. We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was in order to enable consumers to make a more fully informed—

Baroness Tonge: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I must correct something that she said. I do not oppose calls to boycott Israel; I said that it would be a tragedy if that is what had to happen.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, I stand corrected.
	We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was in order to enable consumers to make a more fully informed decision concerning the products they buy that in December 2009 the UK introduced voluntary guidelines to enable produce from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories to be specifically labelled as such. The EU-wide guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce would be an important step to ensure correct
	and coherent implementation of EU consumer protection and labelling legislation, which is in fulfilment of our previous commitments and is fully consistent with long-standing EU policy in relation to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, spoke about the EU-US role in talks. The EU is working closely to support US efforts. There are serious negotiations under way and we urge both parties to make compromises for peace.
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, spoke about Palestinian incitement in the media. We have regularly urged both parties to act against incitement and strongly believe that Abbas is a partner for peace. Now is the time to resolve conflict and move forward.
	I turn briefly to the worsening conflict in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, a negotiated political transition in Syria is the only way forward. The Geneva II peace process will start on 22 January and will bring together, for the first time since the conflict began, the regime and opposition in direct negotiations. EU political support for this diplomatic effort to date has been important. We will do all we can to maximise the chance of Geneva II succeeding.
	We continue to play a role in the humanitarian effort. The UK has already committed £500 million to Syria. At tomorrow’s UN pledging conference in Kuwait, we will announce a further major funding commitment. We look to the EU and others to do the same. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in relation to Syrian refugees—I have those details here but I think that I shall run out of time.
	On the wider role that the EU plays, we have helped to secure the EU designation of Hezbollah’s military wing. The EU has also played an active role on Egypt and on the issue of human rights activists. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has visited Cairo on a number of occasions since July, most recently in October, and has met with a range of interlocutors in Egypt.
	In conclusion, achieving a wider Middle East peace settlement is one of the big challenges of our time. Diplomatic progress in Iran, the Middle East peace process and Syria would bring major benefits for the UK and the world. I can assure noble Lords that the UK will continue to work closely with the EU and our international partners and spare no effort to promote peace in the Middle East.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime andPolicing Bill
	 — 
	Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

Clause 105: Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc
	Amendment 87ZA
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	87ZA: Clause 105, page 76, line 37, after “80” insert “to 85, 86”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the amendments in this group—namely Amendments 87ZA to 87ZY, 94F, 96A, 96B and 100—make a number of essentially technical and drafting amendments to the provisions in Part 9 of the Bill. These provisions, particularly those to be found in Schedule 5 to the Bill, provide for two new civil orders designed to protect the public from sexual harm, namely the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order.
	The substantive amendments relate to three matters. First, youth courts deal with applications for sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders in respect of persons under 18. The amendments to Schedule 5 provide for all such applications to be heard in the youth court. As noble Lords may be aware, the youth court provides a more appropriate setting for juvenile defendants. The magistrates receive specific training and are encouraged to engage in conversation and use plain language with the young person, who is encouraged to respond.
	The House has already agreed amendments to Part 1 of the Bill, which enable linked application for an injunction involving respondents aged under 18 and others aged 18 or over to be heard together in the youth court. Amendments 87ZS and 87ZW make like provision in respect of sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. As in Part 1, the detailed provision will be made in the rules of court and the same test, namely the interests of justice, will apply to the court’s consideration of an application for two or more linked cases to be heard together. This will ensure the effective administration of justice while also allowing cases to be heard in the most appropriate setting.
	Amendments 87ZS and 87ZW also make provision for rules of court in relation to individuals who turn 18 after proceedings for an application for an order have begun. The amendments allow rules of court to prescribe circumstances in which proceedings may or must remain in the youth court, or to make provision to transfer the proceedings to the magistrates’ court.
	In addition to these amendments, the Bill includes provision for statutory guidance on the new orders and, in developing this, we will continue to work with the police, the Courts Service and others to ensure appropriate guidance on the application of the orders to under-18s is included. This will help to ensure that cases relating to under-18s are treated with the specialist consideration and sensitivity needed.
	The second issue addressed by these amendments is to confer powers on the courts in Northern Ireland to vary a sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order. The new civil order regime will extend to England and Wales only, whereas the relevant provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 currently apply throughout the United Kingdom and will continue to operate in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where they relate to devolved matters. The Bill allows for the prohibitions contained in the new orders to be enforceable in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for breaches to be prosecuted in the courts in those parts of the United Kingdom.
	We have been liaising closely with the devolved Administrations in relation to cross-border enforcement. Amendment 87ZX will allow the court in Northern
	Ireland to vary a sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order made in respect of a person who, following the making of the order in England or Wales, now either resides in or intends to come to Northern Ireland. This will be in response to application from the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the defendant. The court may vary an order to impose additional prohibitions if it is necessary to do so for the purposes of protecting the public in Northern Ireland and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm. As in England and Wales, the defendant has a right of appeal against any such variation. Finally, these amendments make consequential amendments to Armed Forces legislation in respect of the operation of the new sexual harm prevention order by the service courts.
	Amendment 87ZY enables the service courts to impose a sexual harm prevention order at the point of conviction in respect of an individual who has been dealt with by that court. Under the current regime, service courts may apply sexual offences prevention orders at the point of conviction. This amendment ensures that service courts have the power to impose a sexual harm prevention order where the court considers this necessary for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK, or children or vulnerable adults abroad, from sexual harm.
	As with orders imposed by the civilian courts, the defendant may appeal against the making of a sexual harm prevention order to the Court Martial Appeal Court where the order was imposed by the court martial. Where such an order was imposed by the service civilian court, the defendant may appeal to the court martial.
	Amendment 87ZY also allows the service court, on application from a provost marshal or the defendant, to vary, renew or discharge a sexual harm prevention order in respect of a defendant who is subject to service law or service discipline at the time of the application. In line with the approach in the civilian court, a service court cannot discharge an order without the consent of the defendant and a provost marshal. Applications to vary, renew or discharge an order may be made by the defendant or a provost martial.
	I trust that noble Lords will agree that these are all sensible refinements to the provisions in Part 9 and, on that basis, I beg to move.
	Amendment 87ZA agreed.
	Amendments 87ZB to 87ZY
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	87ZB: Clause 105, page 76, line 38, leave out “136ZB” and insert “136ZD”
	87ZC: Clause 105, page 76, line 41, leave out from “Sections” to “extend” and insert “85A, 96A, 96AA, 110, 117A, 119 and 123 to 129 and Schedule 3A”
	87ZD: Clause 105, page 77, line 3, after “80” insert “to 85, 86”
	87ZE: Clause 105, page 77, line 9, at end insert—
	“(3C) The references to section 96A in subsections (2A) and (3A) are references respectively to—
	(a) the section 96A inserted by the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, and
	(b) the section 96A inserted by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006.”
	87ZF: Schedule 5, page 154, line 32, leave out “this Schedule” and insert “paragraphs 2 to 6”
	87ZG: Schedule 5, page 156, line 7, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”
	87ZH: Schedule 5, page 156, line 13, at end insert—
	“( ) Where the defendant is a child, a reference in this section to a magistrates’ court is to be taken as referring to a youth court (subject to any rules of court made under section 103K(1)).”
	87ZJ: Schedule 5, page 160, line 7, at end insert—
	“( ) In subsection (5) “the public”, “sexual harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 103B(1).”
	87ZK: Schedule 5, page 160, line 20, leave out first “a” and insert “an adult”
	87ZL: Schedule 5, page 160, line 20, leave out second “a” and insert “an adult”
	87ZM: Schedule 5, page 160, line 23, after first “any” insert “adult”
	87ZN: Schedule 5, page 160, line 23, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”
	87ZP: Schedule 5, page 160, line 25, after “order” insert “and the defendant is under the age of 18”
	87ZQ: Schedule 5, page 160, line 28, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”
	87ZR: Schedule 5, page 160, line 29, at end insert—
	“( ) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is aged 18 or over, an adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.
	In this subsection “adult magistrates’ court” means a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court.”
	87ZS: Schedule 5, page 163, line 10, at end insert—
	“103K SHPOs and interim SHPOs: supplementary
	(1) Rules of court—
	(a) may provide for a youth court to give permission for an application under section 103A(4) against a person aged 18 or over to be made to the youth court if—
	(i) an application to the youth court has been made, or is to be made, under that section against a person aged under 18, and
	(ii) the youth court thinks that it would be in the interests of justice for the applications to be heard together;
	(b) may, in relation to a person attaining the age of 18 after proceedings against that person by virtue of section 103A, 103E, 103F or 103G(6) or (7) have begun—
	(i) prescribe circumstances in which the proceedings may or must remain in the youth court;
	(ii) make provision for the transfer of the proceedings from the youth court to a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court (including provision applying section 103F with modifications).
	(2) A person’s age is treated for the purposes of sections 103A to 103J and this section as being that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence.”
	87ZT*: Schedule 5, page 163, line 34, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”
	87ZU: Schedule 5, page 164, line 36, at end insert—
	“( ) Where the defendant is a child, a reference in that section to a magistrates’ court is to be taken as referring to a youth court (subject to any rules of court made under section 122K(1)).”
	87ZV: Schedule 5, page 166, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
	“(a) where an adult magistrates’ court made the sexual risk order, that court, any adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area;
	(b) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is under the age of 18, that court, a youth court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any youth court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area;
	(c) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is aged 18 or over, an adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.
	In this subsection “adult magistrates’ court” means a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court.”
	87ZW: Schedule 5, page 169, line 41, at end insert—
	“122K Sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders: supplementary
	(1) Rules of court—
	(a) may provide for a youth court to give permission for an application under section 122A against a person aged 18 or over to be made to the youth court if—
	(i) an application to the youth court has been made, or is to be made, under that section against a person aged under 18, and
	(ii) the youth court thinks that it would be in the interests of justice for the applications to be heard together;
	(b) may, in relation to a person attaining the age of 18 after proceedings against that person by virtue of section 122A, 122D or 122E have begun—
	(i) prescribe circumstances in which the proceedings may or must remain in the youth court;
	(ii) make provision for the transfer of the proceedings from the youth court to a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court (including provision applying section 122E with modifications).
	(2) A person’s age is treated for the purposes of sections 122A to 122J and this section as being that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence.”
	87ZX: Schedule 5, page 171, line 26, at end insert—
	“136ZCVariation of sexual harm prevention order by court in Northern Ireland
	(1) This section applies where a sexual harm prevention order has been made in respect of a person who now—
	(a) is residing in Northern Ireland, or
	(b) is in or is intending to come to Northern Ireland.
	(2) An application may be made to the appropriate court in Northern Ireland—
	(a) by the defendant, or
	(b) by the Chief Constable,
	for an order varying the sexual harm prevention order.
	(3) An application under subsection (2) may be made—
	(a) where the appropriate court is the Crown Court, in accordance with rules of court;
	(b) in any other case, by complaint.
	(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and the other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard), may make any order varying the sexual harm prevention order that the court considers appropriate.
	(5) An order may be varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public in Northern Ireland, or any particular members of the public in Northern Ireland, from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(6) An order as varied under this section may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(7) The defendant may appeal against the making of an order under this section, or the refusal to make such an order—
	(a) where the application for such an order was made to the Crown Court, to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland;
	(b) in any other case, to a county court in Northern Ireland.
	(8) On an appeal under subsection (7)(b), the county court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
	(9) In this section—
	“the appropriate court” means—
	(a) where the sexual harm prevention order was made by—
	(a) the Crown Court, otherwise than on appeal from a magistrates’ court, or
	(b) the Court of Appeal, the Crown Court (in Northern Ireland); the Crown Court (in Northern Ireland);
	(b) where—
	(a) the sexual harm prevention order was made by a magistrates’ court, or by the Crown Court on appeal from a magistrates’ court, and
	(b) the defendant is aged 18 or over,
	any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;
	any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;
	(c) where—
	(a) the defendant is aged under 18, and
	(b) paragraph (a) does not apply,
	any youth court in Northern Ireland;
	any youth court in Northern Ireland;
	“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
	“sexual harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 103B(1).
	136ZDVariation of sexual risk order by court in Northern Ireland
	(1) This section applies where a sexual risk order has been made in respect of a person who now—
	(a) is residing in Northern Ireland, or
	(b) is in or is intending to come to Northern Ireland.
	(2) An application may be made to the appropriate court in Northern Ireland—
	(a) by the defendant, or
	(b) by the Chief Constable,
	for an order varying the sexual risk order.
	(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and the
	other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard), may make any order varying the sexual risk order that the court considers appropriate.
	(4) An order may be varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public in Northern Ireland, or any particular members of the public in Northern Ireland, from harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(5) An order as varied under this section may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(6) The defendant may appeal against the making of an order under this section, or the refusal to make such an order, to a county court in Northern Ireland.
	(7) On an appeal under subsection (6), the county court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
	(8) In this section—
	“the appropriate court” means—
	(a) where the defendant is aged 18 or over, any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;
	(b) where the defendant is aged under 18, any youth court in Northern Ireland;
	“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
	“harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 122B(1).”
	87ZY: Schedule 5, page 171, line 26, at end insert—
	“Service courts
	(1) Section 137 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (service courts) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for “104(1)” there is substituted “103A(1)”.
	(3) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
	“(3) Where the court making a sexual harm prevention order is a service court—
	(a) sections 103A(3) to (8), 103F and 103J do not apply;
	(b) sections 103A(1) and (2), 103B to 103E and 103G to 103I apply—
	(i) subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), and
	(ii) as if they extended to the whole of the United Kingdom;
	(c) in relation to an application under section 103E in respect of a defendant who at the time of the application is a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline—
	(i) the application may be made only by the defendant or a Provost Martial, and must be made to the Court Martial;
	(ii) consent under section 103E(6) must be the consent of the defendant and a Provost Martial;
	(iii) an appeal against the making of an order under section 103E, or the refusal to make such an order, must be made to the Court Martial Appeal Court;
	(d) in relation to an application under section 103E in respect of a defendant who at the time of the application is neither a person subject to service law nor a civilian subject to service discipline—
	(i) the application must be made to the Crown Court in England and Wales;
	(ii) an appeal against the making of an order under section 103E, or the refusal to make such an order, must be made to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.”
	(4) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for “section “service court” means” there is substituted “section—
	“civilian subject to service discipline” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 370 of that Act);
	“service court” means”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted—
	““subject to service law” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”
	(5) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
	“(6) Paragraphs (c)(i) and (d)(i) of subsection (3) have effect, in relation to a sexual harm prevention order made by the Court Martial Appeal Court, as if the reference to a service court in that subsection included a reference to that court.”
	Amendments 87ZB to 87ZY agreed.
	Clause 109: Offence of forced marriage: England and Wales
	Amendment 87ZZ
	 Moved by Baroness Thornton
	87ZZ: Clause 109, page 79, line 41, at end insert—
	“( ) A person also commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she causes another person to enter into a marriage and that other person lacks the capacity to consent to that marriage.”

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, before I speak specifically to my amendment, I should like to mention a broader aspect of the discussion about forced marriage.
	In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland raised her serious concerns in detail with the Minister and, since that time, has had a meeting with him and his colleagues. She is unable to be with us today due to urgent family business and is disappointed not to be here because she believed that this matter would be discussed next week on Report.
	Today, I have received a letter from Dr Aisha Gill, Sumanta Roy from Imkaan, and Hannana Siddiqui from Southall Black Sisters registering their opposition to the Government’s proposals to introduce a specific crime of forced marriage. I suspect that the Minister has received the same correspondence. On behalf of my noble and learned friend, I should like to put on the record, as I said in earlier proceedings on the Bill, that the route that the Government have chosen for this matter did not receive uniform support. I mention the Southall Black Sisters, the Ashiana Network, Imkaan, Rights of Women and the JAN Trust by way of counterbalance to the seemingly singular narrative that has been advocated for the victims of forced marriage. I know that the Minister this week intends to meet the stakeholders who share these concerns, and I therefore wonder if he will be taking their views into account over how we might do that at this late stage in the Bill.
	I turn to the amendment and the issue that we discussed in Committee. This is a hidden problem. In cases of the forced marriage of a vulnerable adult, the violence, threats or coercion to which the Bill specifically refers are often not necessary to force a person to marry, due to the lack of capacity of the victim. Deception is not necessarily a factor and, consequently, the amendment seeks to make it an offence if a person forces another person to marry when that person lacks the capacity to consent to the marriage.
	It is worth noting why forced marriages of people with learning disabilities happen. Marriage can sometimes be seen as a means of providing a carer and continuing support. Parents may be the primary carers and, as they get older and less able to provide support; they may view marriage as a means of ensuring continuing care for their son or daughter with learning disabilities. Marriage can be seen as a means of improving the chances of getting a visa to the UK. A person with learning disabilities may be seen as easy to deceive or coerce into such a marriage and then act as the visa sponsor. Families may believe that the marriage will cure the learning disability or allow a person with learning disabilities to lead a normal life.
	It is difficult to find the figures for people with learning disabilities involved in forced marriages. The Forced Marriage Unit estimates that 115 of the cases it has received involve people with disabilities, but it is not clear whether they have learning disabilities or lack of capacity. I have seen an estimate of 50 in 2012. However, the Ann Craft Trust believes that this is the tip of an iceberg and that hundreds of adults who lack capacity are being forced into marriage. Mencap believes the same; its chief executive says:
	“People with a learning disability can be particularly vulnerable to forced marriage … People with a learning disability have a right to express their emotions and sexuality, and to develop personal relationships, just like anyone else. The issue here is that incidences of forced marriage can involve people with a learning disability who are unlikely to have the capacity to consent to such a relationship”.
	The guidelines that have been reissued recently are excellent in the way that they describe this problem and how to deal with it. It is the words in the Bill that concern me. On this side of the House we are still not convinced that they cover somebody who lacks capacity.
	Another problem is the lack of facilities, experience or support for people with learning disabilities who are involved in forced marriage. I gather that there is one refuge that is equipped to deal with forced marriage victims who have learning disabilities. Asha Jama, the manager of Beverley Lewis House, a refuge in east London, says that there is a terrible lack of options for people with learning disabilities who are escaping abuse and forced marriage. She says that the problem is compounded by social care cuts and that statutory authorities are placing the victims in supported living service or care homes, which are not services geared to provide the specialist support needed to address the abuse that these people have faced.
	The amendment seeks to add a third point to Clause 109 which recognises:
	“A person also commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she causes another person to enter into a marriage and that other person lacks the capacity to consent to that marriage”.
	We think that provides completeness to this part of the Bill.
	Finally, I ask the Minister how the Government intend to respond to what looks like an increasing incidence of people who lack capacity being forced into marriage. Can we have some assurance about monitoring and reporting the effectiveness of the legislation in dealing with this particular issue? I beg to move.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her remarks about forced marriage when someone lacks capacity are entirely right. We should be very concerned about this. I think there is evidence from the medical profession that many of these cases occur and could be on the increase, although I would not know that.
	Secondly, on the debate about whether forced marriage should be a criminal offence, the noble Baroness listed organisations that were against that happening. I can list organisations that are in favour of that happening—Girls not Brides and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, to give two examples. We discussed this issue in great detail in A Childhood Lost, the report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, which I chair.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Freedom Charity, which works to provide education and support for individuals who may be at risk of forced marriage. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is right to highlight that many organisations believe that the Government are correct in trying to make forced marriage a criminal offence. The Freedom Charity is precisely one of those organisations and, in my view, the Government’s approach to this is right.
	However, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton, as opposed to the general principle which seems to have been aired, raises another, separate and extremely important issue—the circumstances in which an individual who has been forced into marriage lacks proper capacity to consent to that marriage. I have no doubt that we will be told by the Minister that somehow that is covered by the phrase at the end of Clause 109(1)(b) about a person entering into a marriage,
	“without free and full consent”.
	I understand that argument, but it seems to me that nothing is lost and rather a lot is gained by specifically highlighting the problems of those who may not have the capacity to consent to a marriage.
	I am in no doubt that there are instances where young people, or not so young people, who have limited capacity are being forced into marriages, perhaps from benign motives—that is, to protect or support them—but perhaps also from less benign motives. Forced marriage is pretty abhorrent in itself, but the implications of forcing into marriage somebody who does not even understand what is happening to them seems to me particularly vile and is something that I hope this legislation will address.
	That is why the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton is important, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept and support it. As I said, I understand that they will no doubt say that,
	“without free and full consent”,
	covers the point but, unless it is highlighted and unless the particularly vulnerable state of people with limited capacity is made clear, a great opportunity is being lost. Making it a specific and separate criminal offence is important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when I first saw the amendment, I thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just said, it was covered by Clause 109(1)(b). However, I realised that it is not, because paragraph (b) comes into play only if paragraph (a) applies. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what does “coercion” in paragraph (a) mean? If the argument is that it is covered, I think that we need to understand the extent of coercion and whether that covers the situation that the noble Baroness has set out.
	While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that I hope my noble friend Lady Tonge will seek the leave of the House to speak to her amendments in this group. She got so carried away with enthusiasm for the noble Baroness’s amendment that she forgot to cover them. I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendments. We were all left floundering somewhat listening to the debate on their predecessor amendments in Committee, knowing that there were good intentions behind them but not quite finding the means to support them because we were rather doubtful about them. These amendments are much more comprehensible.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to carry on with my remarks, as I had intended to introduce Amendments 87A and 87B. They seek to make it an offence under the law of England and Wales if someone is,
	“the parent or guardian of a child, and … gives consent for that child to enter into marriage before the age of 18 unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained”.
	The reason we have tried to clarify this is due to a lot of experience from all around in our all-party group. I must emphasise that we also want these provisions to apply to marriages contracted abroad, not just in this country. I must apologise for not being present at Committee stage; I was abroad at another conference so my noble friend Lord Rea spoke on my behalf.
	We have good laws in place to make forced marriage illegal and these are strengthened by this Bill. I would like to commend the excellent work being done by the Forced Marriage Unit at the Home Office, which really is commendable. These amendments seek to close a loophole which I think still exists concerning children between the ages of 16 and 18. In general, not every forced marriage is a child marriage, but every child marriage is usually forced; hardly any take place with the agreement of the participants, who are often tricked into marriage by their families on the pretext of going on holiday or some treat or other.
	According to the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, a person is a child until the age of 18. I notice that in Committee some noble Lords felt that, if children could vote at 16 and join the Armed Forces at 18, they should be allowed to marry at 16 with the consent of their parents. However, I would contend that marriage is a very binding contract indeed, from which it is very difficult to escape. A young person can leave the Armed Forces and can refuse to vote, but they cannot easily get out of a marriage that was contracted sometimes without their consent.
	If young people want to have, hopefully protected, sex—which many do; I was not born yesterday—they can do so legally after the age of 16. If they want to live together in many cultures now, they can do so legally after the age of 16. So what is wrong with asking them to delay the legally binding step of marriage until they are 18? That, however, is not the point of my amendment, but I had to say that because I feel very strongly about it. I know that noble Lords rejected that in Committee.
	At present, any parent who wishes to force a marriage on their son or daughter can do so by claiming that consent has been given if the child is between 16 and 18. In Clause 109(1)(b), the Bill mentions the “full and free consent” of the individuals concerned. However, it does not specifically mention this group between 16 and 18, who can marry with parental consent. I think this needs clarifying. We must make as certain as possible that children involved have given their consent too.
	I was horrified years ago, when I worked among Indian and Pakistani communities as a doctor, at how many of my patients were whisked away from school and married as soon as they were 16 years old. I remember two girls in particular, who were twins, who had done absolutely brilliantly in their O-levels. They were crying as they told me that it was now time to go back to the subcontinent to be married to men whom they had never seen, one of whom was illiterate. All their hopes of university and a career were dashed by parental consent to their marriage.
	I thought the practice had nearly died out until the all-party group which I chair produced a report called A Childhood Lost. We heard from many witnesses who related their stories of being taken abroad for a holiday, only to be shut away on arrival until their marriage to an unknown groom had taken place. There were others whose religious marriage had been contracted during early childhood on a holiday and then was ratified with parental consent as soon as they were 16 years old. All of this happened with total disregard of the wishes of the young people concerned.
	We know that marriage as early as 16 is a public health issue as well as a violation of human rights. It takes away opportunity for education and economic independence; it is associated with violence, rape and sexual abuse; it contributes to higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality and contributes to poor child development. We know that around 5,000 to 8,000 young people are at risk of being forced into marriage in this country every year, based on research done by our Government in 2011. A higher number may not have
	been counted because they were over 16 and it will be argued that the parents have not forced the marriage but have given their consent.
	This is my last ditch attempt to try to strengthen this Bill. I ask the House to support these amendments that I have put forward, which apply to Scotland as well, as an attempt to ensure that consent to marriages has also been given by the two children to be married in that age group. I think that the consent should be given verbally and in writing.

Lord Hope of Craighead: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I could say a word about Amendment 87B, which, as the noble Baroness has just explained, applies to Scotland. I am sure that it is very well intentioned and I hope that I will not alarm the noble Baroness too much when I say that there is an error in the way that these two amendments are presented. They assume that the law of Scotland is the same as the law of England. It is not.
	The law of Scotland—which may alarm the noble Baroness—is that anyone over the age of 16 is free to marry, and parental consent is not required. That was common law for generations and is written into Section 1 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. It is actually one of the reasons why Gretna Green attracted attention. People could elope over the border to Gretna Green, establish residence in Scotland and marry without parental consent, provided they were over 16 and there was no other impediment to marriage.
	That is a bit of history; the point is that the amendment as worded does not really fit in with Scots law. If the amendment were to attract Minister’s sympathy, I respectfully suggest that it would have to be altered. Proposed new subsection (2A)(b) would have to say that a person commits an offence if he or she,
	“gives consent for that child to enter into marriage”,
	that requires parental consent,
	“unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained”.
	It is perfectly possible that two people living in Scotland want to contract a marriage somewhere else where parental consent is needed. In that situation, indeed, if the amendment is reworded it would have some force. But as it is put, it would seem to completely revolutionise the law of Scotland as a whole. That is not really appropriate because of the existing statutory position in Scotland. An amendment as radical as that would need the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which I do not think has been obtained. If the wording was changed, as I suggest, to remove the words,
	“before the age of 18”,
	and to add, “which requires parental consent”, it would fit exactly with what the noble Baroness intends.

Baroness Tonge: I thank the noble Lord for his advice. I was aware of the situation in Scotland, but I was not aware that we could not actually alter the amendment in the way that I intended. However, I thank him for his advice.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Tonge for setting
	out the case for their amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the general issue of forced marriage. In Committee, full discussion took place with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I regret is unable to be with us today. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and I had several meetings with her on this issue. I want to put on record my personal appreciation, and that of the Government, for the sterling work that she did in her various capacities as a government Minister, particularly her role in establishing the Forced Marriage Unit. I know that she comes to this issue with great expertise and knowledge, which have been a useful and extremely important part of the debate that we have had.
	As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and by my noble friend Lady Tonge, whichever way you look at this particular issue, we are all agreed that coercion in marriage and forced marriage are things that need to be tackled. The previous Government took the issue forward in positive ways, and I fully acknowledge that in the course of our considerations and debate, and in our discussions both in Committee and outside the House, opinions have been expressed on all sides of the argument.
	I have heard the reservations, and the noble Baroness mentioned the meetings that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach will be having in this regard. We hope that all organisations, wherever they stand on the issue of criminalisation, will support and work with the Government to ensure that the implementation of these proposals is effective and—what is most important—will help support those who are the vulnerable victims of this terribly tragic and heinous crime. There is no better way of explaining what this issue is.
	As I said in Committee, after considering everything, we believe that the issue of marriage without consent or without the capacity to consent—I will come on to the specific proposals in a moment—is totally unacceptable. By making forced marriage a criminal offence, we believe that we will send out a clear and unequivocal message that this brutal practice will not be tolerated in the UK. The Government are clear that we want to capture forced marriages where someone does not or cannot consent.
	I turn now to Amendment 87ZZ. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, explained that the amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill considers an individual’s ability to consent to marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Harris—again, I commend him on his work in this regard—also mentioned that this would be the Government’s response. We retain our position that we believe that Clause 109 provides that a person commits an offence if he or she,
	“believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that the conduct may cause the other person to enter the marriage without free and full consent”.
	A person who lacks capacity to enter a marriage is of course incapable of giving free and full consent to it. While I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary. I am satisfied that the definitions in the Bill are adequate and already capture the intended effect of the proposed amendments. Multi-agency practice guidelines have been in existence since 2010 to support practitioners
	tasked with tackling forced marriage involving victims with a learning disability. Where necessary, the Forced Marriage Unit works closely with adult social services to ensure that a capacity assessment is carried out to determine whether the individual does indeed have the capacity to consent to marriage. As I indicated, I share the noble Baroness’s wish to see all instances of forced marriage comprehensively dealt with, particularly in the case of vulnerable adults.
	I shall refer briefly to the guidelines mentioned by the noble Baroness. I acknowledge and appreciate her specific comments on them. They provide step-by-step advice for those who work with people with learning disabilities. After all, they may have only one chance to speak to the potential victim and therefore only one chance to save a life. This means that all professionals working in the statutory agencies must be aware of their responsibilities when they come across suspected forced marriage situations. I fully acknowledge that this is even more important for people with learning disabilities. There is an even greater onus on the practitioner to recognise the warning signs. We hope and intend that the guidance will ensure that all practitioners working with people with learning difficulties are aware of their responsibilities and will not let one chance to save a victim be lost. In this regard, after the passing of the legislation, we hope to revisit the guidelines to further strengthen the hand of practitioners and to increase awareness of this issue.
	I turn to some of the specific questions that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about how we will review the legislation and take it forward. We regularly take NGO partners’ views into account, as demonstrated by our public consultation on criminalisation. Let me assure the noble Baroness as well as your Lordships’ House that all views were considered and all shaped the way the legislation has come together. The quarterly meetings of the forced marriage NGO partnership board are the forum for reviewing current and future guidance documents, and membership of this group comprises a number of key organisations that are both in favour of and, indeed, against the introduction of criminalisation. These include organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, mentioned by the noble Baroness.
	My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to Clause 109(1) and to how the two paragraphs might be used. The Government’s view is that the clause, taken as a whole, provides protection for such vulnerable individuals, and that the definition of coercion that my noble friend asked for, in this context, means the application of pressure. The phrase,
	“any other form of coercion”,
	is deliberately drafted very broadly—we have discussed this with legal counsel across government—so as to encompass a wide range of behaviours. For example, I am sure that many noble Lords have come across a situation where various pressures are put on people who find themselves in this situation. The pressures could be financial, emotional or—

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for allowing me to press him on this point. Actually, the point is that there will be no coercion. There does not need to
	be any coercion as the person lacks capacity. Therefore, they cannot consent, or withhold their consent, because they do not know that they can do either of those things. The parents concerned may think that they are doing exactly the right thing for that son or daughter, whether a young person or not. In other words, the Bill as drafted does not cover that point. No coercion is being used, and no coercion is needed, as the person lacks capacity. I do not think the definition of coercion that the Minister has mentioned at previous points in the Bill covers that.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Again, I totally understand and respect the noble Baroness’s position. She is correct in saying that, often, the people who may be forced into a marriage would be unaware of the situation. The point she raised about parents is also well made. However, as the legislation stands, they would not have given their “full” consent, which means that they had the capacity to give that consent. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak.

Lord Harris of Haringey: The point here is not the consent but whether coercion has taken place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly: for an offence to be committed, both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to apply. It is not a question of whether consent has been given or not under paragraph (b) but a question of whether or not there has been coercion. This will not necessarily be coercion. It may simply be suggestion, which I do not think counts as coercion. The context is that you have to do both (a) and (b), so there has to be either the use of “violence” and “threats”—which does not necessarily have to happen—
	“or any other form of coercion”.
	However, this will not necessarily be coercion. I will carry on explaining the point to allow assistance to come from the Box. It is an extremely important issue.
	There is the question of coercion, which leads to somebody entering into a marriage, and the question of consent. I think we all agree that people with limited capacity will not be able to give consent. However, that, in itself, does not create an offence, because they may not have been coerced. A highly suggestible person with learning difficulties may simply have been told, “This is going to be nice, you are going to enjoy this and this is going to be fun. So-and-so is going to look after you and take you to the cinema”. I do not know what the form of suggestion might be, or how it might be put, but that is the context in which it would happen. It is not the same as coercion—that is the difficulty. As far as I can tell—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly—you need both coercion and the failure to consent before you have committed an offence. That is why my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is so important.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their interventions and will return to that point before I conclude my comments. The point is well made and understood, but I will continue while I await clarification. My understanding on this issue is that any person taking part in a marriage would have to give their consent. The view is
	that, if no consent is given, it would not be deemed to be a valid contract. However, as I said, I will clarify that point in a moment.
	I turn to Amendments 87A and 87B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. I shall explain that these amendments relate to the process by which a young person aged 16 or 17 may consent to the marriage. Following the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to meet the noble Baroness and I welcome the opportunity again to discuss this important issue today. These amendments would make it an offence for the parent or guardian to consent to a marriage of a person or persons before the age of 18 unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained. The offence would also extend to marriages contracted outside the UK.
	I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned that under the current law parents may give consent to force marriage on a 16 or 17 year-old who may not wish to marry. However, I do not believe this amendment is necessary because the law already provides adequate safeguards for children who are aged 16 to 17 and are entering into marriages.
	The law in England and Wales, as contained in Section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949, provides that if a marriage, be it civil or religious, is solemnized and either or both of the parties is under the age of 16 that marriage will be void. If the child is aged 16 or 17, Section 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 requires the consent of the child’s parents or guardians, unless the child is a widow or a widower.
	I appreciate that Amendment 87A seeks to add additional safeguards to the current law rather than preventing the marriage of 16 and 17 year-olds outright. However, I consider that the additional need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary. If any person is forced into a marriage without their consent, the provisions in this Bill which will make it a criminal offence to seek to force someone to marry will apply regardless of the age of the party concerned. In addition, any forced marriage would be voidable under Section 12(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on grounds of lack of valid consent.
	If someone is being forced into marriage, it is foreseeable that they could be forced to provide written consent. Therefore, I do not believe that this provision would achieve the noble Baroness’s desired effect of preventing forced marriages. However, I understand totally the noble Baroness’s concerns and I share her desire to ensure that we do everything we can to protect 16 and 17 year-olds—as well as others—from forced marriage. In regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, I will keep the provisions in the Bill under review and, as we have previously discussed, consider the issue of how the legislation is currently drafted to see whether there is something more that we can return to at Third Reading.
	Turning to the application of such a provision to marriages contracted outside the United Kingdom, there is no legislation in England and Wales on this issue and matters of recognition of such marriages in England and Wales are for the courts to determine. However, I consider that the courts already have the necessary powers to provide adequate safeguards for children entering into marriages outside the UK. Generally
	speaking, the validity of a marriage contracted outside the UK will be governed by the law of the country in which it was contracted. However, if there were questions as to the capacity or age of one or both parties to such a marriage, the courts in England and Wales could refuse to recognise the marriage for the purposes of England and Wales law.
	I therefore consider that the need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary in respect of marriages contracted outside the UK. We also do not believe that applying this sort of provision to marriages contracted outside the UK would be practical or appropriate. For example it would, in our view, be extremely difficult to enforce.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment 87B, which seeks to make identical provision to Amendment 87A in respect of Scotland. This is a devolved issue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, underlined.
	Perhaps I may turn to the issue just raised on Section 109. The Forced Marriage Unit carried out a full review of the cases dealt with in relation to victims with learning disabilities and mental health issues and could not find any cases in which there was no element of coercion. Where there is an element of coercion, we do not wish to criminalise the behaviour concerned. Rather, the appropriate recourse is for the individual to apply to the court for the marriage to be declared void under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

Baroness Thornton: This House has a reputation for dealing with issues to do with mental capacity. We have spent many months discussing the issue of capacity and how best to protect people who lack it. We have a great body of legislation which protects people who lack capacity. I ask the Minister to look again as to whether this really protects people who lack capacity as people in this House believe that it does not. It would be awful if we found, further down the track, that we got this wrong and we were not protecting people who lack capacity.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Hearing what the noble Baroness and, indeed, the noble Lord, have said, with the leave of the House, I will return to this issue. I will consider its practical application with my noble friend. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was speaking, I was listening attentively but, as he rightly said, I was waiting for inspiration from the Box. This is too important an issue to deal with in a non-comprehensive way so, as I said, I would like to return to it.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Minister is considering this with his advisers, on the point about an application to the court, will he consider both the practicality and the legal capacity of the people we are concerned about to make that application?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: That is a valid point. I have had discussions with officials on the issue of ensuring assistance. If someone has not had the mental capacity to consent, would they have the mental capacity to take up the issue? That is a point understood and well made.
	I hope that, based on the assurances and clarification that I have given that we will look at the issue again, at this juncture the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for his usual comprehensive and comprehensible response. I am very grateful for the fact that the Government have agreed to think about this again and, of course, we will be very happy to help them to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 87ZZ withdrawn.
	Amendment 87A not moved.
	Clause 110: Offence of forced marriage: Scotland
	Amendment 87B not moved.
	Amendment 88
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	88: Clause 110, page 81, line 21, leave out “2” and insert “7”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, Clause 110 creates two offences of forced marriage in Scotland that mirror the offences in Clause 109 for England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament is currently considering the necessary legislative consent Motion. The amendment relates to the penalty on conviction on indictment for the new offence. Initially, the Scottish Government opted for this to be imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, as that was in line with similar penalties in Scotland. The Scottish Government have given further consideration to the issue and concluded that if we are providing consistency across the UK by criminalisation, we should seek to extend the consistency by applying the same maximum penalties on indictment. The maximum sentence of seven years has been set to cover the most serious behaviour imaginable under the offence. We have looked closely at other existing offences, international comparators and related maxima in proposing the new maximum sentence. I beg to move.
	Amendment 88 agreed.
	Amendment 89
	 Moved by Lord Marlesford
	89: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause—
	“Part 10AForeign enlistment
	Offence of participation in armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty
	In the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, after section 5, insert—
	“5A Participation in armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty
	(1) It shall be an offence for a British citizen or British subject, without the licence of Her Majesty, to—
	(a) participate as a combatant in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, or
	(b) induce any other British citizen or British subject to participate in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty.
	(2) It shall be a defence for a British citizen or British subject charged with an offence under this section to—
	(a) notify the Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before such participation in such armed combat, or
	(b) prove that they acted in self-defence.
	(3) A notification under subsection (2)(a) must be made in writing, and the sharing of any information therein by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with other organisations is permitted notwithstanding any requirements of the Data Protection Acts.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable by—
	(a) fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments; and
	(b) forfeiture of any United Kingdom passport held by the person, or
	(c) deprivation of citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.””

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House rather late on a quite different subject from that which we have been discussing in the past hour or so. Let me first explain why I am moving Amendment 89, to add a new section to the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 to make it an offence to participate as a combatant in armed conflict against a foreign state without the licence of Her Majesty. My purpose in doing so is to defend the realm, which is the first duty of any British Government.
	As the world recovers from six years of financial crisis, the determination of the expanding Islamic jihadist factions to wage terrorism in the West is a growing threat to the stability and future of our citizens. The growth of Islamist jihad is now as dramatic as anything that has been seen since those decades of expansion that followed the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. This now includes persecution of Christians in many Muslim countries, particularly Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and now Syria, which was once an oasis of religious tolerance. It is reminiscent of Stalin’s description to Beria of the Bolsheviks as,
	“a sort of military-religious order”.
	The brutal ferocity, using a combination of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, with which jihad is being pursued by a relatively small number of fanatical Islamists is hard to counter. The Islamist challenge is the one issue on which the five permanent members of the UN Security Council share a common interest.
	Components of the disorder that has followed the Arab spring include: a desire for freedom; an aspiration for better living standards; hope for democracy; tribal conflicts; revenge on oppressors; incitement to new human rights abuses and other activities—all of which are overlaid with the historical and tragic hatreds between Sunni and Shia, which are reflected both nationally and regionally. Both Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, and Shias, led by Iran, struggle for hegemony. Over that hovers the shadow of the Islamist Wahhabi agenda, of which the new generation al-Qaeda is the guardian and choreographer for a world-scale jihad to install Sharia law under a Sunni caliphate in as many countries as possible.
	In Libya, the operation of various militant groups has now raised the risk to a level where international construction companies are starting to withdraw their
	personnel from major development programmes. In Iraq, the ferocity of the Sunni backlash against the Shia majority has led to rapid escalation of sectarian terrorism with a massive death rate. With the establishment of al-Qaeda-dominated Islamist factions in Yemen, the Government are struggling to maintain control over the country.
	It is now clear that American and European policy towards Syria has been a disaster. Western moral support with implied crucial military backing for the rebellion against Bashar Assad sustained and expanded the struggle to a point where the brutality of Assad’s resistance outraged international opinion. Then in August, plans for the imminent military action by the US, Britain and France to achieve regime change in Damascus were aborted after the British participation was voted down by Parliament. By then, the Islamists had taken control of the rebel forces and any hope of democracy in Syria was replaced by the wholly unacceptable prospect of an al-Qaeda-dominated Islamist state perhaps even worse than the present Government.
	The Islamist influence is spreading rapidly inside Africa. In Nigeria, a particularly vicious form of hostage-taking terrorism by al-Qaeda is prominent. In Mali, the French have intervened against al-Qaeda. Similar intervention by French forces is taking place in the Central African Republic. In Somalia, 6,000 mulitnational Sunni militants of al-Shabaab, another al-Qaeda offshoot, are fighting 17,000 African Union troops, who are attempting to defend a weak Somali Government. In predominantly Christian Kenya, al-Shabaab is expanding its attacks, for example with the September attack on the Nairobi shopping mall.
	During 2013, more British citizens were killed by terrorism overseas than in the previous seven years combined. In Pakistan there is almost total anarchy, with the army appearing ambivalent about the fight against Islamist extremists. A real indicator of the hold that the Taliban fundamentalists have over Pakistani thinking is the way in which the schoolgirl Malala, who in December 2012 was shot in the head by the Taliban for demanding education for girls, has now been demonised in certain parts of Pakistan.
	All that is the backdrop to my amendment, so let me now come to the specific risks. In this, I have been guided by the evidence given on 7 November 2013 in a rare public meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament by the director of GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, the director-general of the Security Service—MI5—Mr Andrew Parker, and the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—Sir John Sawers. They outlined some aspects of the direct threat to this country from British jihadists who go to fight overseas.
	The head of MI6 said:
	“The threat comes from those countries which are either secretive states, where there is ungoverned territory where terrorists can operate … the Middle East, South Asia, Africa”.
	If there is a terrorist there, he said,
	“it is important for our security, in the UK, that an eye is kept on him, that he is surveilled, that he is monitored. Maybe he needs to be detained and arrested at some point”.
	The head of MI5 said:
	“A very important strand of the threat we face is the way in which there is interaction between people who live in this country, who sympathise with or support the Al-Qaeda ideology and they
	travel to areas where they meet these Al-Qaeda groupings, either Al-Qaeda itself in South Asia or some of these other groupings … they meet British citizens who are willing to engage in terrorism and they task them to do so, back at home where they have a higher impact in this country”.
	He went on to say that the threat,
	“has grown recently and is growing … because of Syria. Syria has become a very attractive place for people to go for that reason”.
	He referred to:
	“Those who support or sympathise with the Al-Qaeda … message … We have seen low hundreds now of people from this country go to Syria for periods and come back, some large numbers still there, and get involved in fighting”.
	He went on to say,
	“the vast majority of the plots come from people who live here. There are several thousand individuals in this country who I would describe as supporting violent”,
	terrorism or being “engaged in it”. I hope that I may have convinced your Lordships of the threat.
	My amendment, which builds on earlier legislation, discriminates against no one. It merely means that any British passport holder who takes part in armed conflict as a combatant against a foreign state with which we are not at war, or who induces any other British citizen to do so, will be subject to penalty unless he has informed the Foreign Secretary before doing so. There could be three penalties according to my amendment: a fine or imprisonment; the forfeiture of a British passport; or the deprivation of citizenship. It would send a clear message to those considering taking part in armed jihad. It would necessitate HM Passport Office being aware of the details of other passports that British passport holders have. This is something that I have urged for a long time, as part of the better methods of defending our national borders, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to tell me that that is now in place.
	I should perhaps add that there are already substantial powers to deal with terrorism. Indeed the Supreme Court, in R v Gul in 2013, emphasised that while there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism in international law, in British law terrorism is very widely defined. My amendment is therefore neither needed nor intended to deal with terrorism per se; it is intended to control actions which, according to the heads of our intelligence services, could lead to people becoming terrorists. It is therefore a preventative measure, and one with sufficient sanction to deter those who might be led into terrorism by military adventure overseas.
	Finally, it is because the jihadist threat is a new threat that I believe this is necessary. There was in days past a tradition of British citizens going to fight in other people’s battles with which they identify—the Spanish civil war is an obvious example—but this is quite different. In any case, the opportunity as well as the need, in effect, to get consent from HMG before becoming an overseas combatant, would ensure that no one need fear victimisation for their political or religious convictions. I believe I would have the support of the great majority of the British people in raising this issue today. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford
	for tabling this amendment, not least because it provides your Lordships with an opportunity to consider the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870—not something that we do every day, or night. The Act prohibits British nationals from fighting in the armed forces of another state, against friendly states. The new clause would go further by creating a new offence of participation in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty. My noble friend’s amendment raises an important and topical issue: that of people from the United Kingdom seeking to engage in combat abroad in so-called “theatres of jihad”, such as the civil war in Syria, to which my noble friend referred.
	Although the issue of British nationals fighting abroad is not a new one, or one specific only to Syria, it is something that the Government take very seriously. Syria is now the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world, and there are currently thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, including a large number of Europeans. We judge that more than 200 UK-linked individuals have travelled to Syria to join the fighting. Of course, not all individuals who travel to Syria are extremists. Many simply want to support humanitarian efforts. However, those who do travel there are putting themselves and innocent Syrians in danger, and we know that a number of Europeans have already been killed in the conflict. Moreover, we know that some individuals travel to Syria—or other places such as Yemen or Somalia—to engage in fighting with terrorist groups.
	The Government are working with the police and security services to disrupt travel by individuals of concern. Your Lordships will understand why I am unable to provide specific details of all of the actions that are being taken to this end—but rest assured, we support the use of the full range of available measures. In particular, where there is evidence that individuals are planning, promoting, funding, facilitating or participating in terrorist activities overseas—including terrorist fighting—the police and Crown Prosecution Service will look to prosecute them, before they go or on their return. A very wide range of offences already exists on the statute books to capture such activity, not least in the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, which provide extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to certain activities. Although my noble friend’s amendment seeks to add a further offence to the disruptive arsenal, I fear that this amendment, as drafted, entails a number of drawbacks that would undermine its effectiveness.
	Firstly, the amendment recognises that, while the 1870 Act already deals with fighting for another state’s armed forces, many modern conflicts involve an array of non-state actors and irregular militias. However, like the 1870 Act, this amendment deals only with,
	“armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty”.
	Hard distinctions of war and peace made sense in 1870; Tolstoy’s masterpiece had been published just the year before. But the bases for modern conflicts are no longer so binary. The UK has not been in a declared condition of war since the defeat of the Axis forces in 1945. Today we are at peace with all states, at least in the classical sense of international law.
	Secondly, the defence of notification to the proposed new offence has the potential to severely undermine the disruptive utility. Whether it was my noble friend’s
	intention I do not know, but the amendment as drafted gives the Secretary of State no additional power to prohibit a person who gives notice of their intention to fight overseas from going. A number of existing powers might be used to prevent such a person from travelling—and, of course, the Bill augments these by providing powers to seize passports cancelled on public interest grounds. But the amendment adds nothing to these powers. Indeed, the proposed offence bites only when a fighter who previously failed to notify returns to the UK. Anyone who does notify the Secretary of State would be completely free from the sanctions which this amendment seeks to put in place.
	Thirdly, any offence that hinges on such a notification regime is likely to raise significant difficulties in enforcement. A committed jihadist is unlikely to inform the authorities of his travel plans for fear of disruption, either before or after the fact. Evidence that a person has engaged in fighting abroad would be extremely difficult to obtain, so the evidential difficulties in securing a prosecution may be no less than for the other relevant offences available.
	Fourthly, although self-defence has a well understood meaning in relation to ordinary offences against the person, how it would apply in the context of overseas conflicts is unclear. Many jurisdictions have laws to deal with the use of defensive force in situations of immediate danger, and we expect British nationals to comply with local laws wherever they are. But the idea of participating in armed conflict as an act of self-defence is a difficult matter. We must take care not to legitimise the wrong-headed extremist narrative that paints so-called jihadists as fighting a war of self-defence on behalf of Muslims internationally.
	Finally, the amendment proposes sentences for the new offence that could include forfeiture of a passport and deprivation of British citizenship. As noble Lords will recall from our discussion in Committee of what is now Clause 138, passports are issued under the royal prerogative. The Home Secretary already has the power to refuse or withdraw passports where she believes that a person’s activities—past, present or proposed—are so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest. The British Nationality Act gives the Home Secretary powers to deprive persons of their British citizenship when she is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good, provided that the person is not left stateless as a result. As such, these sentencing options would not be necessary.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for raising the issue of British nationals fighting overseas. I assure your Lordships that this is something that the Government take extremely seriously. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not believe that the amendment would be the right way to proceed and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having raised so many points so clearly and in such detail. I hope very much that there will be action under the present provisions of the law to ensure that, wherever possible, British citizens who have engaged in jihadism overseas, will be prosecuted on their return to this country—as he said that they
	already can be under the existing law. I hope very much that the removal of passports—and, if appropriate, of British citizenship—will take place.
	This is a very serious subject. The evidence given by the security chiefs to Parliament was chilling. I had no idea what a serious situation we face, and I am delighted that the Government have stated that they are well aware of it and are dealing with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 89 withdrawn.
	Amendment 90
	 Moved by Lord Harris of Haringey
	90: Before Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—
	“Local community safety plans
	In section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) after subsection (1A) insert—
	“(1B) In exercising functions under subsection (1), each of the responsible authorities for a local government area must set out their approach to making use of the powers conferred by Parts 1 to 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.””

Lord Harris of Haringey: In moving Amendment 90 I shall also speak to Amendment 91. These two amendments are intended to be entirely helpful to the Government. I am surprised that that suggestion provoked hilarity from the Government Front Bench, because that is genuinely the case. If the Minister has in front of him a brief from his officials suggesting that he should oppose these amendments, I hope that by the time he has finished listening to what I have to say he will realise that that advice is perhaps an example of civil servants approaching amendments to a Bill as if not a tiny hair of its precious head should be interfered with, because obviously it is an object of complete perfection. I hope that by the end of my speech the noble Lord will realise that I am trying to improve the Bill and make it fit more coherently with other legislation on policing and anti-social behaviour.
	Amendment 90 requires that each of the responsible bodies in a local community safety partnership should set out its approach to using the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. As part of the production of a community safety plan, the various relevant organisations —the local authority, the local police commander, and possibly the health bodies and so on—should set out how they will use the powers given to them by the Bill.
	Amendment 91 requires that police and crime commissioners should include in their policing and crime plans objectives for the use of the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. Before the Minister assumes that I must have had some sort of Damascene conversion to the concept of police and crime commissioners, let me tell him that this is nothing of the sort. I am simply trying to make this legislation that the Government are trying to get through consistent with other legislation that Parliament has already passed. I am not saying that previous legislation is perfect or does not need changing; I am simply trying to make this legislation consistent with it.
	The aim of the amendments is to integrate what is in the Bill with other legislative requirements. They would ensure that plans were made for how the various
	powers—the new injunction powers, the dispersal order powers and so on, which we have spent many happy hours debating—would be used in any local area. The requirement that the intentions of the various responsible authorities be set out in the local community safety plans and the force-wide policing and crime plans will ensure that there is public consultation on the approach to be taken. It will also require buy-in from all the local partners to the approach being taken. Above all, we are trying to ensure that some sort of coherent strategy for the use of Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill is articulated. At the moment, that is not an obligation for those who will enforce it.
	In my view, local community safety plans are the building blocks of local collaboration. The 1998 Act that created them, and the subsequent amendments of the law that have strengthened and added elements to them, are the mechanism by which, at local level, the police service, the local authorities and other relevant parties come together to decide on the best way of dealing with what, in the original formulation and language used, was called crime and disorder. In this context, that would include anti-social behaviour. What is the best way of addressing that? My amendment would involve the local authority sitting down with the police and identifying the circumstances in which they can both make a difference, so it is about the sort of collaboration that the Minister, in responding to a number of provisions, has talked about as being the sine qua non of what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, the amendment follows the principles set out by Ministers but provides a framework in which they will be discussed at local level by the relevant parties. The amendment would also provide coherence and enable the relevant intentions to be set out clearly. It sets out a mechanism for this to take place and a mechanism for partnership around what the Government want to see achieved at local level with regard to anti-social behaviour. It also sets out a mechanism whereby those approaches can be agreed.
	The amendment would deliver transparency at local level with regard to how the measures in Parts 1 to 5 are to be used—without the amendment, I am afraid that the Bill simply does not have that—and introduce a much clearer system of local accountability as the local objectives in regard to the use of Parts 1 to 5 would be set out. It would also provide a mechanism to achieve consistency of approach in the way that the powers in Parts 1 to 5 are used within a force area and even within a local authority area. Above all, it would institutionalise effective collaboration. I cannot see what there is in these amendments for the Government Front Bench not to like. As I say, they are genuinely put forward in a spirit of trying to be helpful and make this piece of legislation consistent and compatible with other legislation that requires collaboration and working together to protect local communities against anti-social behaviour. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I entirely agree with what lies behind these amendments but have one concern about them, with which the noble Lord may be able to help me. We heard in an earlier debate on the Bill that
	a number of police and crime commissioners are already dealing with anti-social behaviour as one of their objectives. I assume that, as they are doing that, they are able to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to refer specifically to this Act, as it will be, in the second of the noble Lord’s amendments in this group.
	Given that we already have a requirement under new subsection (1A) of the relevant Act for each of the responsible authorities to have regard to the police and crime objectives, I am not sure whether the proposed new subsection (1B) is necessary. We often hear that things are not necessary but it is helpful to be clear about them. However, my real concern is whether, by referring specifically to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, there might be a suggestion that it should have priority over other legislation which could be listed among the objectives. The relevant police reform Act, the obligations of the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime plans use wide and general terms. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, as it will become, will not be the only legislation to which all responsible authorities need to have regard, so I am concerned about knock-on effects outside what we are considering at the moment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I understand the noble Lord’s eagerness to accept this, and it may have something to do with the hour, but, just occasionally, I have a few words to say on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I must admit that when I first looked at these amendments I had a slight concern about the role of the community safety partnerships and their responsibilities. My own CSP has seen a massive cut in its budget and its capacity to deal with some of the issues before it. But when resources are short, planning is most essential. It would be extremely useful to have the kind of co-ordination function that is laid out in the amendments.
	I am sorry that the Minister laughed when my noble friend said how helpful he was trying to be. He has been accused of many things during the course of proceedings on the Bill. He was accused of being mischievous when he was trying to be helpful. He put on record that he is trying to be helpful now and there was hilarity from the Benches opposite, which I genuinely think is most unfair. This is the kind of amendment that sets in place how the objectives of the Bill can be achieved by those responsible for implementing it.
	There are new powers in this Bill. It is important that all the partners understand their role and the expectations. I give one example. The noble Lord will recall that I proposed amendments in Committee on dispersal orders. One of the issues is that there is no longer a responsibility on the police to consult the local authority when issuing dispersal orders. The new orders that the Government are proposing are wider and can last longer than the ones in place at the moment. There is also no obligation to consult the local authority, but the guidance says—I cannot remember the exact phraseology—that there is the opportunity to discuss or that that is expected or is likely. Before
	any dispersal orders were issued, would it not be helpful if discussions took place within the community safety partnership about what the expectations would be when it came to the point of issuing one? It is fitting to have that kind of co-ordination, to know what the expectations and responsibilities are, to ensure that the legislation being put forward by the Government has an impact, that it does not disappear into the ether somewhere but can be worked on. I would expect that this is the very least that the Government would expect—to have this way of taking the new legislation into the existing framework.
	I certainly accept my noble friend’s comments that he is seeking to be helpful. It is a very helpful amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to take that on board.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am quite prepared to accept that he has a helpful side to his nature. I am very grateful that he has presented these amendments. I sense the spirit in which he has tabled them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is always helpful. I am grateful for her contribution to this debate.
	I will talk about the issue in general and then talk about how it happens specifically. This is about how police and local councils will use the powers running right through Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will deal with Amendment 90 first and then I will come on to Amendment 91. I have listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the amendment. Although I appreciate the helpful intent behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware, Sections 5 to 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already require local authorities and the police to co-operate with each other and other local agencies in formulating and implementing strategies to reduce crime and disorder. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right. The Government expect local authorities and the police to co-operate together. The formulation and implementation of those strategies would manifestly include a consideration of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the London Borough of Haringey’s current community safety strategy which identifies six outcomes, one of which is to:
	“Prevent and reduce acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour”.
	It is in implementing such strategies that it goes almost without saying that the responsible authorities will take full account of the new powers in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill, as well as existing less formal interventions, to tackle such behaviour.
	As a result of our extensive consultation on the new powers with local authorities—the Bill has been drafted with local authority consultation as its backbone—as well as other agencies, I am confident that they are fully aware of the importance in ensuring that the use of the powers is underpinned by a coherent strategy and good partnership working. Indeed, local authorities have played a major role in shaping the new powers and would no doubt be keen to ensure that they work effectively in their areas. Moreover, along with their individual strategies and the Government’s statutory guidance, local authorities will issue their own guidance
	to front-line professionals on the use of the new powers and their approach to them. This is what they do with their existing powers and I see no reason why that practice would not continue.
	I turn to Amendment 91. I will repeat the point that I made in Committee. The election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime, thereby giving them a greater say in how their local area is policed by these directly elected representatives. I admit that it will be a great day when I can get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to admit that the policy has achieved that objective—but that task is not beyond us.
	Under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan for their local area and must consult with their chief constable in drawing up the plan. Such plans must include objectives for reducing crime and disorder. As I indicated in Committee, 30 of the police and crime commissioners have put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour as one of their key priorities in their plans. Another eight have put reducing the impact and keeping people safe from anti-social behaviour as one of their individual priorities; and the remaining three commissioners want to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour.
	Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. London’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 states that,
	“tackling anti-social behaviour … or quality of life crime, is critical to addressing perceptions of disorder in a neighbourhood, and although MOPAC”—
	the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—
	“is setting no explicit targets for the police in this area, ASB is one of the three priorities for the London Crime Reduction Board, chaired by the Mayor”.
	It is obvious that the successful implementation of this and other police and crime plans when it comes to tackling anti-social behaviour will necessarily involve an assessment of how the new powers in the Bill can be put to best use.
	This was reflected by Sir Graham Bright, the Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner, who said about the Bill in October last year:
	“Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims”.
	Sir Graham went on to say:
	“It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities”.
	In short, the police, local authorities and other agencies recognise the importance of understanding how to use the new powers in the Bill effectively to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. The statutory guidance provided in the Bill will undoubtedly help them in this regard.
	In practice, I believe that on this issue there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are at one in recognising the importance of
	partnership in working to tackle anti-social crime and anti-social behaviour, and of this being reflected in local crime and disorder strategies and police and crime plans. This is what the Government expect local authorities to do.
	In implementing such plans, in so far as they relate to tackling anti-social behaviour, we would clearly expect the police, local authorities and other agencies to make effective use of the new powers in the Bill. While we seek the same outcome, I do not believe that these amendments are needed to achieve it. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous endorsement of my intention to be helpful on this occasion. I suggest that my espousal of the current arrangement for police and crime commissioners will have to wait for another occasion; we are certainly not going to get there tonight.
	I have some difficulty with his response. It is very useful that he set out for the record the Government’s commitment that the use of the powers under the terms of the Bill should be very much part of local planning in terms of the preparation and delivery of community safety plans and in terms of police and crime commissioners setting out their objectives. The reality is that most police and crime commissioners have said, “Yes, this is one of our priorities”. They have not—partly, of course, because the legislation has not been passed—specified exactly how they intend to approach these issues. But of course, at the moment, there is no obligation on them to refer to the content of the Bill. That is what would be changed.
	My noble friend Lady Smith talked about the dispersal order powers. This is one example of where we beg to differ on the subject of whether there should be prior consultation with local authorities. If there was at least a formal agreement and protocol on the circumstances in which both sides will expect those powers to be used, that would be helpful to the legislation and might avoid some, although I fear not all, of the problems that were identified when we talked about this on a previous occasion.
	I do not think that the Bill requires the sort of collaboration that I think is necessary and that the Minister thinks is necessary. I think it is unfortunate that the Bill is so silent on how this fits in with community safety plans and police and crime plans, but I am at least grateful to the Minister for what he has said on the record today. In the light of that—I will read the debate carefully to make sure that he has not left too many gaps—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 90 withdrawn.
	Amendment 91 not moved.
	Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.18 pm.